TI^GOVE 
EUROPE; 


m 
1 


W.  B.MUNRO 


•The' 


THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

NEW  YORK   •    BOSTON   •    CHICAGO 
ATLANTA  •    SAN   FRANCISCO 

MACMILLAN  &  CO.,  LIMITED 

LONDON   •    BOMBAY  •    CALCUTTA 
MELBOURNE 

THE  MACMILLAN  CO.  OF  CANADA,  LTD. 

TORONTO 


THE 


BY 


WILLIAM   BENNETT   MUNRO,  PH.D.,  LL.B. 

ASSISTANT   PROFESSOR   OF   GOVERNMENT 
IN   HARVARD   UNIVERSITY 


Nefct  fforfc 
THE   MACMILLAN   COMPANY 

1909 

All  rights  reserved 


a 


COPYRIGHT,  1909, 
BY  THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY. 


Set  up  and  electrotyped.     Published  March,  1909. 


NartaooD 

J.  8.  Gushing  Co.  —  Berwick  &  Smith  Co. 
Norwood.  Mass.,  U.S.A. 


Comtatie  of  stuticnt  turns 


PREFACE 

THE  purpose  of  this  volume  is  to  explain,  in  a  general 
way,  the  structure  and  functions  of  city  government  in 
three  European  countries,  and  to  contrast  these,  wherever 
they  may  be  appropriately  compared,  with  the  structure 
and  functions  of  city  government  in  the  United  States.  It 
has  been  my  aim  to  describe  who  the  city  authorities  are, 
how  they  are  chosen,  what  they  do,  and  how  they  do  it ; 
but  not  to  examine  in  detail  the  physical  operation  of 
municipal  services  or  the  minutiae  of  municipal  adminis- 
tration. Considerable  attention  has  been  devoted  to  the 
relations  of  the  civic  and  state  authorities  in  each  of  these 
countries ;  for  the  writer  believes  that  this  is  one  of  the 
most  important  of  all  the  phases  of  local  administration. 

The  book  is  intended  to  afford  an  introduction  to  the 
study  of  European  city  governments,  and  no  attempt  has 
been  made  to  deal  in  exhaustive  fashion  with  any  aspect 
of  the  subject.  To  bring  the  narrative  within  reasonable 
compass  it  has  been  necessary  to  omit  many  matters  of 
some  importance,  and  to  deal  in  a  paragraph  with  other 
things  which  might  well  have  a  page.  With  this  in  mind 
an  endeavor  has  been  made  to  indicate  in  the  footnotes 
convenient  sources  from  which  further  information  may 
be  drawn  by  readers  who  may  become  interested  in  any 
part  of  the  general  field. 

In  the  task  of  preparing  the  volume  I  have  received 
generous  and  valued  assistance  from  many  quarters.  To 
Professor  H.  Berthelemy  of  the  University  of  Paris  and 

vii 


viii  PREFACE 

to  M.  L6on  Morgand  I  am  greatly  indebted  for  their  kind- 
ness in  giving  careful  scrutiny  to  that  portion  of  the 
volume  which  describes  the  government  of  French  cities. 
Dr.  Hugo  Preuss  of  Berlin  and  Judge  Walter  Neitzel  of 
Strassburg  have  given  me  much-appreciated  assistance  in 
the  revision  of  the  chapter  relating  to  Prussian  city  gov- 
ernment ;  while  that  part  of  the  book  which  deals  with  the 
government  of  English  boroughs  owes  considerable  to  the 
helpful  suggestions  made  upon  its  proof  sheets  by  Mr. 
Percy  W.  L.  Ashley  of  the  Board  of  Trade  and  by  Mr. 
F.  W.  Hirst  of  London.  It  is  only  fair  to  these  gentlemen 
to  add,  however,  that  they  are  in  no  way  responsible  for 
the  expressions  of  opinion  which  the  book  contains.  To 
my  kind  friend  and  senior  colleague,  Professor  A.  Lawrence 
Lowell,  I  am  extremely  grateful  for  assistance  and  en- 
couragement at  all  stages  of  the  work.  In  routine  mat- 
ters connected  with  the  publication  of  the  book,  Miss 
A.  F.  Rowe  of  Cambridge  and  Miss  Magdeleine  Garret  of 
Wellesley  College  have  given  me  much  useful  aid. 

WILLIAM  BENNETT  MUNRO. 

January  5,  1909. 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER   I 


PAGE 

THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  FRENCH  CITIES  1 


CHAPTER   II 
THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  PRUSSIAN  CITIES 109 

CHAPTER   III 
THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES 209 

CHAPTER  IV 
SOURCES  AND  LITERATURE 380 

INDEX ,    403 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN 
CITIES 

CHAPTER   I 

THE    GOVERNMENT    OF    FRENCH    CITIES 

THE  student  of  contemporary  municipal  administration  TheRevo- 
in  France  finds  it  hardly  necessary  to  pursue  the  course  %nd  the 
of  civic  development  farther  back  than  the  period  of  the  jefo[m0°f 
Revolution;    for   this  great  political  upheaval  created  in  eminent, 
the  sphere  of  local  government,  as  in  the  other  domains 
of  French  administration,  an  almost  complete  break  in  the 
continuity  of  institutional  history.     Prior  to  the  Revolu- 
tion France  had   practically  no   system  of    local  govern- 
ment ;  in  the  various  provinces   the  cities  were  adminis-  City  gov- 
tered  in  widely  different  ways,  the  centralization  of  powers  during  the 
in  the  hands  of  the  royal  authorities  being  much  more  nearly  c 
complete  in  some  places  than  in  others.     Even  within  the 
bounds  of  a  single  province,  moreover,  the  form  as  well  as 
the  spirit  of  communal  administration  showed  considerable 
variation.     There  was,  indeed,  no  approach  to  uniformity 
save  in  the  fact  that  local  autonomy  was  almost  every- 
where absent,  and  that  in  no  part  of  the  kingdom  was 
there  any  security  against  the  captious  interference  of  some 
higher  authority  in  affairs  of  purely  local  concern.1     The 

1  Details  concerning  the  administration  of  the  larger  communes,  or  cities, 
during  the  century  preceding  the  Revolution  may  be  found  in  Albert  Babeau's 

B  1 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


Work  of 
the  Con- 
stituent 
Assembly 
in  1789. 


turmoils  of  the  Revolutionary  era  left  the  physical  bound- 
aries of  the  communes  without  any  important  alterations; 
but  communal  administration  carried  over  into  the  new 
regime  scarcely  a  single  heritage  of  the  old. 

One  of  the  first  undertakings  of  the  Constituent 
Assembly,  on  the  threshold  of  the  Revolution,  was  to 
destroy,  root  and  branch,  the  old  methods  of  local  govern- 
ment and  to  supplant  them  by  a  system  that  should  be 
democratic,  uniform,  and  symmetrical.  In  this  reorgan- 
ization, effected  in  1789,  the  44,000  or  more  traditional 
local  units  known  as  the  paroisses,  or  communautes  oPhdbi- 
tants,  were  utilized  as  irreducible  areas  of  local  self-govern- 
ment, and  were  provided  with  a  uniform  framewdrk  of 
administration.  According  to  the  provisions  of  the  law  of 
1789,  each  commune  was  thenceforth  to  have  a  mayor  and 
council  chosen  by  the  citizens  upon  a  basis  which  came 
very  close  to  manhood  franchise  ;  for  only  the  very  poorest 
among  the  citizens  were  excluded  by  the  small  property 
qualification  prescribed.1  It  was,  indeed,  the  design  of  the 
law  to  treat  the  communes  as  miniature  republics,  with 
power  to  select  their  own  local  rulers,  and  with  authority 
to  manage  their  own  affairs  free  from  any  interference  on 
the  part  of  the  higher  officials.  The  striking  feature  of 
the  law  of  1789  was,  therefore,  the  provision  which  it  made 
for  a  system  of  local  government  at  once  democratic  and 

La  ville  sous  Vancien  regime  (Paris,  1880).  See  also  Ame'de'e  Gasquet's  Precis 
des  institutions  politiques  et  societies  de  Vancienne  France  (2  vols.,  Paris,  1885); 
Achille  Luchaire's  Les  communes  franqaises  (Paris,  1890)  ;  Adhe"mar  Esmein's 
Histoire  du  droit  frangais  (8th  ed.,  Paris,  1908)  ;  and  H.  Berthe'lemy's  Traits  de 
droit  administrate/  (5th  ed.,  Paris,  1908),  especially  pp.  179  ff. 

1  Decret  sur  les  municipalites  (December  14, 1789).  The  terms  of  this  decree 
may  be  found  in  J.  B.  Duvergier's  Collection  complete  des  lots,  decrets,  ordon- 
nances,  reglements,  avis  du  conseil  d'etat  (107  vols.,  Paris,  1834-1907),  I.  63-67  ; 
and  in  F.  A.  Helie's  Les  constitutions  de  la  France  (Paris,  1880),  I.  59-72. 
An  English  translation  is  printed  in  F.  M.  Anderson's  Constitutions  and  other 
Select  Documents  illustrative  of  the  History  of  France  (Minneapolis,  1904), 
24-33. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  FRENCH  CITIES  3 

decentralized.1     During  the  years  1789-1790  this  plan  was 
applied  to  all  the  communes  of  France,  large  and  small. 

Like  most  of  the  legislation  of  the  Constituent  Assembly,  The  reor- 
the  decree  reorganizing  the  system  of   municipal   govern-  of  ITS*  too 
ment  attempted  a  step  too  advanced  for  the   actual  con-  sweePms- 
ditions  of  French  political  life  at  the  time.     The  new  plan   • 
intrusted  too  much  unsupervised  power  to  a  people  almost 
entirely  unaccustomed   to   the   art   of  managing  its  own 
local  affairs.     In  obedience   to   the   Revolutionary  passion 
for  equality  and  uniformity,  the  framers  of  the  decree  of 
1789  seem  to  have  lost  sight  of   the   important  differences 
in  needs  and  problems  between  urban  and  rural  commu- 
nities ;  for  they  sought  to  apply  to  all  alike  a  framework 
of  administration  which   hardly  sufficed   for   the    former 
and  was  much  too  complex  for  the  latter.     The  most  car-  its  chief 
dinal  defect  of  the  system,  however,  lay  in  its  almost  entire 
abolition  of  effective  central  control  over  the  municipalities, 
a  step  that  deprived  the  authorities  at  Paris  of  the  powers 
necessary  to  check  the  local  disorders  with  which  France 
was  convulsed  during  the  next  four  or  five  years.2     Indeed, 
even  after  the  passing  of  more  than  a  century  the  French 
people  have  not  proved  themselves  fitted  either  by  temper- 
ament or  by  experience  to  carry  out  smoothly  a  plan  of 
local  self-government  such  as  that    which   the   Assembly 
sought  to  establish  in  1789. 

The  lapse  of  a  few  years  served  amply  to  disclose  the  Changes 

•  i    «  <•  /•  •    i     •      made  by  the 

inherent  defects  of  the  new  law,  for  the  system  which  it  Directory 
established  proved  quite  unequal  to  the  strain  and  stress 
put  upon  it  during  the  stormy  days  of  the  Terror.     Hence, 

1  By  the  law  of  1789  the  communautes,  which  had  hitherto  been  in  no  case 
more  than  personal  agglomerations,  became  recognized  territorial  units,  though 
some  of  them  contained  only  two  or  three  houses. 

2  On  the  working  of  this  system  during  the  period  1789-1796,  see  E.  Lavisse 
and  A.  Rambaud's  Histoire  generate  du  IVe  siecle  a  nos  jours  (12  vols.,  Paris, 
1896-1908),  VIII.  79  ff. 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


Chief 

features  of 
the  new 
system. 


The  new 
system  an 
improve- 
ment. 


when  the  Directory  intrenched  itself  in  control  of  the 
national  administration  in  1795,  it  lost  little  time  in  devis- 
ing a  plan  of  local  government  which  should  endeavor  to 
eliminate  much  of  the  spirit  of  democracy  and  decentrali- 
zation that  had  characterized  its  immediate  predecessor. 
In  its  new  constitution,  therefore,  it  inserted  a  number  of 
provisions  dealing  with  the  organization  of  local  govern- 
ment.1 The  principle  of  permitting  citizens  to  elect  their 
own  local  officials  was  retained,  but  the  control  of  the 
central  authorities  over  these  officers  was  greatly  strength- 
ened. Under  the  new  arrangement  the  canton  replaced 
the  commune  as  the  basal  unit  of  local  government.  Every 
urban  community  of  any  considerable  size  was  macle  a 
canton,  with  its  administration  vested  in  the  hands  of  a 
cantonal  directory  of  from  five  to  nine  members  elected 
by  the  citizens ;  and  the  smaller  communes  (including  all 
those  of  less  than  5000  population)  were  grouped  into 
cantons,  thus  losing  their  autonomy  and  becoming  mere 
administrative  divisions  of  the  larger  areas.  The  three 
largest  cities  of  France  —  Paris,  Lyons,  and  Marseilles  — 
were  each  divided  into  three  or  more  municipalities,  with 
a  special  administration  designed  to  insure  the  possibility 
of  stricter  supervision  by  the  national  Directory. 

Although  the  arrangements  of  1795  had  their  undoubted 
merits  in  that  they  rendered  easier  the  task  of  maintain- 
ing local  peace  and  order,  the  new  system  was  not  gener- 
ally popular.  The  canton  was  a  purely  arbitrary  division, 
with  no  historical  traditions  and  no  homogeneity  of  feel- 
ing. The  commune  was  the  only  local  unit  to  which 
Frenchmen  owed  any  sentimental  allegiance;  and  in  fail- 
ing to  utilize  it  as  the  basis  of  local  administration  the 

1  Constitution  du  Sfructidor,  de  Van  III  (August  22,  1795),  in  Duvergier's 
Collection,  VIII.  223-242  ;  printed  also  in  H61ie's  Constitutions,  I.  466-493, 
and  Anderson's  Constitutions  and  Documents,  212-254. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  FRENCH  CITIES  5 

national  authorities  seriously  impaired  the  effectiveness 
of  the  new  policy.  Although  the  plan  of  1795  affords  some 
evidence  that  a  spirit  of  constructive  statesmanship  was  be- 
ginning to  make  itself  felt  in  official  circles  at  Paris,  the 
whole  arrangement  is  characterized  too  prominently  by 
marks  of  a  tendency  to  experiment.  The  inauguration  of 
the  new  scheme  was,  however,  a  tacit  confession  that  com- 
munal autonomy  could  not  safely  be  continued,  and  that 
the  decree  of  1789  had  too  greatly  weakened  the  lines 
of  central  control. 

The  system  of  municipal  government  established  by  the  The  law  of 

1800 

Directory  remained  in  existence  until  1800  only,  when  the 
advent  of  Napoleon  Bonaparte  to  the  executive  headship 
of  French  affairs  as  first  consul  dictated  a  further  change.1 
In  some  respects  the  Napoleonic  reorganization  may  be 
looked  upon  as  a  development  of  the  system  of  1795 ; 
for  it  elaborated  and  in  some  measure  strengthened  the 
lines  of  national  control  over  local  officers,  and  it  went 
a  step  farther  than  its  immediate  predecessor  by  setting 
aside  entirely  the  elective  principle  in  local  government. 
In  some  other  respects,  however,  it  reverted  to  the  ar- 
rangements made  in  1789,  for  it  made  the  commune  again 
the  fundamental  unit  of  local  administration.  The  can- 
tonal divisions  were  retained ;  but  they  became,  under  the 
Napoleonic  system,  merely  judicial  districts.  It  was  ar-  characteris- 
ranged  that  every  commune,  large  or  small,2  should  thence-  Napoleonic 
forth  intrust  the  administration  of  its  affairs  to  a  mayor  system- 
and  one  or  more  ad  joints,  associated  with  a  municipal 
council  of  ten,  twenty,  or  thirty  members  according  to  the 
population  of  the  municipality;  but,  since  in  all  cases  the 

1  Constitution  du  28  pluvibse,  de  Van  VIII  (February  17,  1800),  printed  in 
Duvergier's   Collection,  XII.  78-116  ;  Helie's  Constitutions,  I.  611-626  ;  and 
Anderson's  Constitutions  and  Documents,  283-288. 

2  By  the  elimination  of  the  smallest  ones,  the  number  of  recognized  communes 
was  now  reduced  from  44,000  to  36,000. 


8 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


Adminis- 
trative cen- 
tralization. 


The  pre- 
fects. 


The  sub- 
prefects. 


Permanence 
of  the 
Napoleonic 
system. 


mayor,  adjoints,  and  councillors  were  to  be  appointed 
either  by  the  central  government  or  by  its  departmental 
agents,  the  elimination  of  local  election  was  about  as 
nearly  complete  as  it  had  been  under  the  old  regime. 

The  most  striking  feature  of  the  Bonapartist  system  of 
communal  government  was  the  establishment  of  effective 
machinery  by  means  of  which  the  strictest  sort  of  control 
and  supervision  might  be  exercised  from  Paris  over  all  the 
organs  of  local  administration.  To  this  end  the  depart- 
ments ("administrative  districts  into  which  France  had  been 
divided  by  the  Revolutionary  government)  were  each  pro- 
vided with  an  executive  official  directly  appointed  by  the 
national  authorities  and  responsible  to  them  alone.  These 
officers,  thenceforth  known  as  prefects,  differed  but  little 
either  in  method  of  appointment  or  in  the  wide  scope  of 
their  powers  from  the  much-maligned  intendants  of  the 
Bourbon  era ;  and  their  elevation  to  rank  as  the  strongest 
link  in  the  chain  of  Napoleonic  administration  affords  an 
interesting  illustration  of  the  way  in  which  a  violent  re- 
action against  administrative  centralization  succeeded,  in 
the  long  run,  only  in  securing  the  reestablishment  of  an 
old  office  under  a  new  designation.  Each  department  was, 
moreover,  by  the  law  of  1800,  parcelled  out  into  new  ad- 
ministrative divisions  called  arrondissements,  each  with  a 
subprefect,  who  was  vested  with  jurisdiction  substantially 
similar  to  that  possessed  by  the  subdelegates  of  the  old 
dominion,  and  who  now  became  local  deputy  of  the  pre- 
fect. Through  the  prefects  and  subprefects  the  hand  of 
the  central  government  was  able  to  hold  the  municipali- 
ties with  a  tight  rein :  the  whole  arrangement  combined 
simplicity  and  symmetry  with  extreme  centralization. 

The  Napoleonic  system  of  local  administration  deserves 
more  than  a  passing  mention  ;  for  not  only  have  many  if 
not  most  of  its  salient  features  been  retained  in  France 


THE   GOVERNMENT  OF  FRENCH  CITIES  7 

down  to  the  present  time,  but  its  influence  upon  the  local-  its  influence 
government  policies  of  other  countries  —  of  Italy,  Belgium,  France.0 
Spain,  Greece,  Japan,  and  the  South  American  republics, 
for  instance  —  has  also  been  marked.  Judged  by  its 
qualities  of  permanence  and  by  its  influence  abroad,  the 
law  of  1800  is  one  of  the  best  examples  of  Bonaparte's 
creative  statesmanship,  taking  rank  with  the  Code  and 
the  Concordat  among  his  enduring  non-military  achieve- 
ments. If,  in  the  nineteenth  century,  England  has  been 
the  mother  of  parliaments  and  has  exercised  a  dominant 
influence  upon  the  evolution  of  national  governments, 
France  has  had  an  equally  important  role  in  moulding 
systems  of  local  administration  among  the  nations. 

The  fall  of  the  Napoleonic  Empire  did  not  bring  about  Changes 
any  important  changes  in  local  government;  for,  although  period  1815- 
the  restored   Bourbons    now    resumed    charge    of    French  1848> 
national  affairs  with  a  sweeping  curtailment  of    the    old 
royal  prerogatives,  their  parliaments  authorized  no  impor- 
tant concessions  to  the  principle  of  local  autonomy.     The 
Napoleonic    system  of  strict  prefectoral  supervision    over 
the  municipalities,  and  of  appointive  local  officers,  was  re- 
tained intact ;  it  was,  indeed,  only  after  the  upheaval  of 

1830,  when  the  Bourbons  gave  way  to  the  Citizen  King  of 
the  Orleanists,  that  the  first  substantial  departure    from 
the  imperial  policy    was  effected.     By  an  act  passed    in 

1831,  provision  was  made  that  the  municipal  councillors 
should  thenceforth  be  elected   indirectly   by  such  citizens 
of    the    commune    as    possessed   certain    prescribed   prop- 
erty or  educational   qualifications.     The  mayors  and  ad- 
joints  were  to  be  appointed,  as  before,   by  the  national 
authorities    upon    recommendation    of    the   prefects ;    but 
they  were  to  be  chosen  only  from  among  the  membership 
of  the  municipal  councils.     No  lessening  in  the  strictness 
of  central  control  over  municipal  affairs  was  provided  for 


8 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


Local  gov- 
ernment 
under  the 
Second  Re- 
public. 


The  Second 
Empire. 


Changes 
made  by 
Napoleon 
III. 


in  this  enactment ;  but  some  six  years  later  a  limited 
amount  of  independent  jurisdiction,  especially  in  the 
matter  of  initiating  local  projects,  was  intrusted  to  the 
councils  of  communes. 

When  France  again  became  a  republic  in  1848,  the  new 
republican  constitution  made  explicit  provision  that  in 
all  municipal  elections  the  principle  of  manhood  suffrage 
should  have  full  recognition.1  Accordingly,  in  all  the  com- 
munes councillors  were  for  the  time  being  elected  by  the 
adult  male  citizens  ;  and,  as  a  further  step  in  the  direction 
of  decentralization,  the  municipal  councils  in  communes 
of  not  more  than  6000  inhabitants  were  permitted  to 
select  their  own  mayors  and  adjoints  without  any  inter- 
ference on  the  part  of  the  prefects.  In  the  larger  mu- 
nicipalities these  officials  continued  to  be  appointed  from 
above,  —  always,  however,  from  the  ranks  of  the  local 
councils.  By  these  arrangements  municipal  government 
received  very  substantial  concessions  in  the  direction  of 
democracy  and  autonomy ;  but  its  newly-acquired  privi- 
leges proved  of  short  duration,  for  in  less  than  five  years 
the  Second  Republic  had  become  the  Second  Empire,  and 
the  change  in  the  spirit  of  national  administration  soon 
reflected  itself  in  the  domain  of  local  government.  In  1852 
the  smaller  communes  lost  the  privilege  of  choosing  their 
own  mayors ;  and  in  the  same  year  the  national  govern- 
ment abolished  the  practice  of  restricting  its  choice  of 
mayors  and  adjoints  in  the  larger  municipalities  to  the 
membership  of  the  councils.2  It  is  true  that  throughout 
the  period  of  the  Second  Empire  (1852-1870)  elections 
in  all  the  municipalities  were  conducted  upon  what  was, 

1  Constitution  de  la  Republique  franqaise   (November  4,  1848),  §  79,    in 
Duvergier's  Collection,  XLVIII.  560-609  ;  He"lie's  Constitutions,  II.  1102-1129  ; 
and  Anderson's  Constitutions  and  Documents,  622-538. 

2  Constitution  du  14  Janvier  1852,  Titre  VIII.  §  57,  in  He"lie's  Constitutions, 
II.  1171. 


THE   GOVERNMENT  OF  FRENCH  CITIES  9 

in  theory  at  any  rate,  a  basis  of  manhood  suffrage ;  but 
the  trend  of  development  during  this  era  was,  on  the 
whole,  very  distinctly  in  the  direction  of  renewed  centrali- 
zation. The  powers  of  the  municipal  council  were,  indeed,  increased 
somewhat  extended  in  1867,  but  hand  in  hand  with  this  ^ticn. " 
expansion  went  a  stiffening  of  the  prefectoral  control  over 
this  local  organ.  In  fact,  throughout  the  Second  Empire 
the  prefectoral  system  was  infused  with  a  new  vigor  and 
vitality,  and  the  office  of  prefect  became  the  real  pivotal 
point  of  all  local  administration.  The  municipal  councils 
did  little  more  during  this  period  than  approve  the  local 
budgets  which  were  submitted  to  them  each  year  by  the 
administrative  authorities;  for,  although  they  were  tech- 
nically entitled  to  the  exercise  of  a  free  hand  in  dealing 
with  municipal  funds,  they  were  really  subservient  to  the 
higher  officials,  whose  constant  and  effectual  interference 
in  the  conciliar  elections  served  to  make  the  latter  mere 
travesties,  and  secured,  in  the  larger  cities  at  least,  the 
selection  of  councillors  who  responded  readily  to  the  re- 
quests of  the  imperial  agents.  In  the  realm  of  national 
government  the  era  of  the  Second  Empire  witnessed  the 
all  but  complete  extinction  of  free  political  life,  and  the  Extinction 
same  decadence  manifested  itself  in  the  areas  of  local  autonomy, 
administration.  During  the  late  sixties,  to  be  sure,  when 
the  empire  was  tottering  to  its  fall,  the  baneful  effects  of 
a  policy  which  had  served  utterly  to  repress  the  principle 
of  local  self-government  became  so  apparent  even  to  the 
emperor  himself  that  a  hastily  planned  movement  along 
the  paths  of  decentralization  marked  the  closing  years  of 
the  imperial  regime ;  but  in  spite  of  this  concession  the 
municipalities  of  France  found  themselves  in  1870  as 
completely  under  the  hand  of  the  central  authorities  as 
they  had  been  at  any  time  since  1830.  The  intervening 
forty  years,  an  epoch  of  striking  economic  advance  and  of 


10 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


Local  gov- 
ernment 
under  the 
Third  Re- 
public. 


Tentative 
measures 
of  1871. 


Centralized 

features 

retained. 


the  most  substantial  progress  in  the  modernization  of  the 
French  cities,  had  been  marked  by  no  important  improve- 
ments in  the  system  of  local  administration. 

The  National  Assembly  that  in  1871  assumed  charge 
of  the  political  affairs  of  France,  which  had  been  so  badly 
disorganized  by  the  German  invasion  and  the  fall  of  the 
empire,  found  that  a  revision  or  a  recasting  of  the  whole 
municipal  system  was  one  of  the  urgent  matters  demand- 
ing its  attention.  As  it  was  not,  however,  in  a  favorable 
position  to  proceed  with  the  elaboration  of  any  new  and 
comprehensive  municipal  code,  it  decided,  as  a  tempo- 
rary expedient,  to  revive,  with  some  few  changes,  the 
plan  established  in  1848.1  Among  the  alterations  effected 
the  most  important  was  that  which  permitted  the  coun- 
cils in  the  smaller  communes  to  select  their  own  mayors 
and  adjoints.  In  cities  of  over  20,000  population,  and  in 
the  chief  towns  of  departments  and  arrondissements,  these 
officials  were  to  hold  their  appointments,  as  before,  from 
the  higher  authorities.  Local  terms  of  office  were  also 
shortened,  both  mayors  and  councillors  being  restricted  to 
three-year  terms. 2  This  plan  of  1871  seems  to  show  that, 
in  a  large  measure,  centralization  of  local  government  in 
France  had  come  to  stay.  To  the  grant  of  a  large  measure 
of  communal  autonomy  the  Assembly  was  on  principle 
very  favorable,  but  there  were  those  among  its  leaders 
who  feared  to  carry  the  principle  into  practice. 

The  temporary  arrangements  made  in  1871  may  be  said 
to  have  served  their  purpose  in  compromising  matters 
until  the  new  republican  government  should  have  become 
firmly  intrenched.  During  the  decade  following  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  Third  Republic,  however,  the  central  au- 

1  Cf.  above,  p.  8. 

2  Loi  du  14  avril  1871,  in  Duvergier's  Collection,  LXXI.  71-79,  and  Ander- 
son's Constitutions  and  Documents,  612-618. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  FRENCH  CITIES  11 

thorities  found  their  policy  of  supervising  the  affairs  of 
the  larger  cities  often  difficult  to  enforce.  The  spirit  of 
municipal  home  rule  asserted  itself,  and  the  national  gov- 
ernment frequently  forestalled  trouble  only  by  a  tame 
compliance  with  its  demands.1  Under  the  presidency 
of  McMahon  the  republican  ministry  showed  a  disposition 
to  check  this  drift  toward  municipal  independence  effec- 
tually ;  for  in  1874  the  National  Assembly  concurred  in  the  The  law 
passage  of  a  law  reviving  the  right  of  the  president  to  ap- 
point the  mayors  and  adjoints  in  the  smaller  municipalities.2  • 
The  general  elections  of  1876,  however,  established  in 
power  a  national  administration  more  favorable  to  com- 
munal autonomy,  and  the  legislation  of  1874  was  at  its  speedy 
once  repealed.3  Eight  years  later  the  government  fol- 
lowed with  the  additional  concession  of  permitting  every 
commune,  large  or  small  (with  the  exception  of  Paris),  to 
select  its  own  administrative  officers  without  interference 
from  outside.4 

About  this  time  important  difficulties  in  the  way  of  a  Disorgan- 
proper  and  exact  administration  of  municipal  affairs  were  dltion°of 
continually  arising  from  the  fact  that  there  had  not  since  ^latii^to 
1837  been  any  thorough  revision  and  codification  of  local-  municipal 

.    .       adminis- 

government  law.5  Every  enactment  relating  to  civic  tration. 
administration  had  been  in  the  nature  either  of  an 
amendment  to  the  laws  immediately  preceding,  or  of  a 
revival  of  some  arrangement  belonging  to  an  even  earlier 
period ;  hence  the  whole  system  rested  upon  a  bewildering 
mass  of  laws  and  decrees  made  and  revised  by  monarchi- 

1  On  the  workings  of  the  system,  see  Gabriel  Hanotaux's   Contemporary 
France,  I.  235  ff. 

2  Loi  sur  les  maires  (January  20,  1874),  in  Duvergier's  Collection,  LXXIV. 
2-4. 

8  Loi  relative  a  la  nomination  des  maires  et  des  adjoints  (August  12,  1876), 
Ibid.  LXXVI.  268-271. 

*  Loi  relative  a  la  nomination,  etc.  (March  28,  1882),  Ibid.  LXXXII.  116-118. 
6  The  codification  of  1837  had  been  somewhat  revised  in  1867. 


12 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


cal,  imperial,  and  republican  governments.  Leading  states- 
men of  the  republic  recognized  clearly  enough  the  need 
of  a  complete  revision  and  codification  of  the  jurispru- 
dence relating  to  municipal  administration;  but  upon  the 
fundamental  question  of  the  degree  to  which  the  principle 
of  local  home  rule  ought  to  receive  recognition  in  the  pro- 
posed code  the  various  factions  in  the  national  parliament 
were  committed  to  somewhat  divergent  views.  In  No- 
vember, 1883,  however,  it  was  decided  to  appoint  a  com- 
mission of  nine  members,  to  which  should  be  intrusted 
the  whole  task  of  revising  and  collaborating  the  various 
enactments  into  a  comprehensive  municipal  code. 

This  commission  completed  its  work  early  in  the  fol- 
lowing year;  and  the  measure  which  it  laid  before  the 
French  parliament  was,  with  some  modifications,  passed 
by  both  houses  and  duly  promulgated  on  April  5,  1884,1 
shortly  after  which  an  elaborate  ministerial  circular  was 
issued  giving  full  explanations  in  regard  to  the  provisions 
of  the  compilation.2  The  municipal  code  of  1884  is  distin- 
guished by  its  comparative  brevity,  its  comprehensiveness, 
and  its  simplicity.  It  contains  in  all  only  one  hundred 
and  fifty-seven  sections  or  articles,  most  of  them  very  brief, 
the  whole  excellently  arranged  and  furnishing  a  model  of 
terse  expression.  Since  1884  several  amendments  to  it 
have  been  made ;  but  in  all  its  essentials  it  is  at  the 
present  time  the  basis  of  all  village,  town,  and  city  govern- 
ment in  France.8  The  only  city  excepted  from  its  opera- 

1  Loi  sur  V organisation  municipale  du  5  avril  1884,  in  Duvergier's  Collec- 
tion, LXXXIV.  99-148. 

2  Circulaire  ministerielle  du  15  mai  1884,  sur  V  application  de  la  loi  munici- 
pale (Paris,  1889). 

8  The  best  commentary  on  the  municipal  code  of  1884  is  Le"on  Morgand's 
La  loi  municipale  (7th  ed.,  2  vols.,  Paris,  1907).  A  convenient  handbook, 
which  includes  the  texts  of  various  important  ministerial  circulars  interpret- 
ing the  law,  is  Ferdinand  Dreyfus's  Manuel  populaire  du  conseiller  municipal 
(Paris,  1904). 


THE   GOVERNMENT  OF  FRENCH  CITIES  13 

tions  was  the  capital,  which  still  retains  a  regime  excep- 
tionnel  based  upon  legislation  prior  to  that  of  1884.1 

Under  the  provisions  of  the  code  of  1884  the  unit  of  The  corn- 
municipal  government  in.  France  is  the  commune,  a  term 
which  is,  of  course,  very  comprehensive,  for  it  includes  not 
only  small    hamlets  with  a  few  dozen    inhabitants,    but 
large    cities    like   Lyons,  Marseilles,  and   Bordeaux,   with 
populations  well  above  the  quarter-million  mark.     By  the 
last   census  no   less    than   36,222    local   areas  were  rated 
as  communes,  of  which  somewhat  more  than  one-half  had 
populations  not  exceeding  500;  and  of  these  137  had  less 
than  fifty  inhabitants  each.     On  the  other  hand,  250  com-  Variations 
munes  contained  more  than  10,000  people  apiece,  and  four-  ^  Com-1Z€ 
teen    had    populations    exceeding    100,000    each.     France,  mune8- 
it  should  be  borne  in  mind,  is  even  at  the  present  day  a 
predominantly  rural  country  ;  for  only  slightly  more  than 
one-fourth    of    her  population  is  massed    into    the  urban 
communities  of  above  10,000  population,2  —  a  percentage  Proportion 
smaller  than  that  of  England,  Germany,  or  even  of  the  ruraipopu° 


United  States.  The  progress  of  urban  concentration,  so 
marked  in  other  countries,  has  in  France  been  less  striking, 
and  for  obvious  reasons.  For  one  thing,  the  total  popula- 
tion of  the  republic  has  gained  very  slowly  during  the  last  Causes  of 
three  decades  or  more,  a  fact  which  has  in  recent  years  gr°0wth.  *' 
given  French  statesmen  some  grounds  for  apprehension. 
The  country  has  had  no  important  foreign  influx  ;  on  the 
contrary,  there  has  been  some  exodus  to  Algeria  and  to 
the  other  French  possessions  beyond  the  seas.  The  main 
cause  of  tardy  urban  growth  may,  however,  be  found  in 
the  fact  that  industrially  and  commercially  France  has 
scarcely  kept  pace  with  her  Teutonic  sister  states,  —  and 

1  See  below,  p.  91. 

2  La  situation  financiere  des  communes  de  France  en  1906  (published  by  the 
Ministere  de  I'lnt^rieur,  Paris,  1907). 


14 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


Uniformity 
in  the 
French 
municipal 
system. 


Disadvan- 
tages of  a 
uniform 
system. 


during  the  nineteenth  century,  as  has  frequently  been 
pointed  out,  industry  and  commerce  have  been  the  hand- 
maids of  city  expansion.1 

The  policy  of  attempting  to  provide,  by  the  terms  of  a 
single  enactment,  for  the  efficient  administration  of  all  local 
units  of  population,  no  matter  how  widely  different  their 
people  and  their  problems,  is  perhaps  a  logical  outcome 
of  that  passion  for  uniformity  which  has  somewhat 
strongly  characterized  French  administrative  methods 
since  the  Revolution.  Such  a  policy  might  reasonably 
have  been  expected  to  encounter  serious  difficulties,  but 
on  the  whole  it  has  not  done  so.  The  machinery  of  local 
government  in  France  is  undoubtedly  too  complex  and 
cumbrous  for  the  thousands  of  small  communes,  most  of 
which,  like  the  English  parishes,  are  too  diminutive  to  serve 
properly  as  administrative  units.2  On  the  other  hand,  it  is 
perhaps  not  elaborate  enough  for  the  largest  municipalities; 
for  on  more  than  one  occasion  the  national  authorities  have 
made  some  changes  in  local  administrative  machinery, 
notably  in  the  case  of  Marseilles,  which  has  very  recently 
been  deprived  of  its  control  of  local  police  mainly  because 
the  communal  authorities  did  not  seem,  in  the  eyes  of  the 
national  government,  to  be  entirely  competent  in  their 
administration  of  this  service.8  At  the  same  time,  some 
degree  of  elasticity  has  been  possible  from  the  fact 
that,  although  all  municipalities,  large  and  small,  have 
similar  organs  of  government,  the  membership  of  the 
municipal  council  depends  roughly  upon  the  size  of  the 
commune.  Much  is  said  in  the  United  States  about 
the  impossibility  of  providing,  in  a  general  charter  law, 

1  The  causes  of  modern  city  growth  are  elaborately  discussed  in  Adna  F. 
Weber's  Growth  of  Cities  in  the  Nineteenth  Century  (New  York,  1899),  ch.  iii. 

2  A  discussion  of  this  subject  may  be  found  in  Alfred  Porche's  La  question 
des  grandes  et  des  petites  communes  (Paris,  1900). 

.  »  See  below,  p.  73. 


THE   GOVERNMENT  OF  FRENCH  CITIES  15 

for  the  satisfactory  administration  of  all  classes  of 
cities.  How,  then,  would  the  legislators  of  an  American 
state  regard  a  proposal  to  establish  a  uniform  frame- 
work of  administration  applicable  not  only  to  all  cities 
of  whatever  size,  but  to  towns  and  villages  as  well  ? 
This,  nevertheless,  is  what  the  French  municipal  code  has 
done,  and  with  no  very  evil  results.  It  should  be  borne 
in  mind,  however,  that  the  French  system  has  not  been 
subjected  to  any  severe  strain  ;  for  the  population  of  the 
cities  has  grown  very  slowly  and  evenly,  and  has  retained 
its  homogeneity  of  character. 

The  municipal  code,  as  has  been  said,  treats  all  munici-  Definition 
pal  units  (with  the  exception  of  Paris)  as  communes,  a  ^^ com" 
term  for  which  even  Frenchmen  have  not  found  it  easy  to 
give  a  concise  and  comprehensive  definition.  The  com- 
mune is,  however,  the  smallest  territorial  division  of  the 
republic,  all  other  sections  —  cantons,  arrondissements,  and 
departments  —  being  multiples  of  it;  at  the  same  time,  it 
may  cover  a  whole  canton  or  even  several  cantons,  the  canton 
in  that  case  becoming  a  division  of  the  commune.  Again, 
the  commune  has  both  a  territorial  and  a  personal  basis. 
On  the  one  hand,  it  is  a  tract  of  territory  the  precise  limits 
of  which  were  defined  by  the  law  of  December  22, 1789,  or 
by  some  subsequent  law  or  decree;  for  by  the  law  of  1789  all 
local  units  which  had  a  separate  identity  during  the  old  re- 
gime were  authoritatively  recognized  as  communes,  and  since 
that  enactment  there  have  been  a  number  of  suppressions, 
divisions,  consolidations,  and  creations  of  communal  units. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  commune  is  an  agglomeration  of  A  territorial 
citizens  united  by  life  in  a  common  locality  and  having  a  u°itpei 
common  interest  in  the  communal  property.  A  commune 
ranks  as  a  legal  person  :  it  may  sue  and  be  sued,  may  con- 
tract, acquire,  or  convey  property,  —  it  may,  in  general, 
exercise  all  the  ordinary  rights  of  a  corporation.  For  the 


16 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


Framework 
of  com- 
munal gov- 
ernment. 


The  com- 
munal 
council. 


Its  size. 


sacredness  of  communal  traditions  the  provisions  of  the 
code  display  marked  consideration,  permitting  changes  in 
boundaries  by  the  higher  departmental  authorities  only  after 
an  elaborate  enquete  has  been  held  and  the  local  feeling 
consulted,1  and  providing  that  even  the  name  of  the  munici- 
pality may  not  be  altered  save  by  a  special  decree  of  the 
president  of  the  republic.2 

By  the  terms  of  the  municipal  code  the  organs  of  ad- 
ministration in  all  communes  consist  of  a  council,  a  mayor, 
and  one  or  more  adjoints  or  assistants  to  the  mayor.  In 
the  laws  prior  to  1884  the  mayor  and  adjoints  were 
named  before  the  council  as  organs  of  communal  adminis- 
tration ;  and  the  reversal  of  this  order  in  the  code  of  1884 
was  designed  to  emphasize  the  view  of  the  national  author- 
ities that  the  council  was  thenceforth  to  be  regarded  as 
the  more  important  branch  of  local  government.8  Though 
it  may  be  doubted  whether  this  intention  has  been  fully 
realized,  the  council,  nevertheless,  in  view  of  the  fact  that 
it  selects  the  mayor  and  adjoints,  takes  rank  as  the  pivotal 
organ  of  the  municipality.  Its  composition  and  powers 
may,  therefore,  be  considered  first. 

The  size  of  the  French  municipal  council  depends  roughly 
upon  the  population  of  the  municipality,  and  ranges  from 
ten  to  thirty-six  members.4  Communes  with  populations 
below  500  have  ten  councillors ;  in  the  larger  municipali- 
ties the  number  increases  according  to  a  graduated  scale, 
until  in  cities  of  60,000  or  over  the  council  has  thirty-six 
members.5  All  cities  above  this  figure  in  population 


1  La  lot  municipale,  §§  3-9. 

2  Ibid.  §  2.     See  also  Albert  Ramalho  on  "  Des  changements  de  nom  des 
communes,"  in  Eevue  generate  d1  administration,  1896,  III.  5  ff. 

8  The  Circulaire  ministerielle  du  15  mat  1884  makes  this  clear. 
4  La  lot  municipale,  §  10. 

6  By  the  census  of  1901  there  were  twenty-four  cities  with  populations  ex- 
ceeding 60,000  each. 


THE   GOVERNMENT  OF  FRENCH  CITIES  17 

have  uniformly  thirty-six  councillors,  with  the  single  ex- 
ception of  Lyons,  which  has  fifty-four.  Save  Paris  and 
Lyons,  therefore,  all  the  larger  cities  of  France  have  coun- 
cils of  uniform  size,  —  a  size,  it  may  be  noted,  which  is 
somewhat  smaller  than  that  of  the  municipal  council  in 
Germany,  England,  or  the  United  States. 

Members  of  the  council  are  elected  for  a  four-year  term,  Term  of 
and  there  is  no  provision  for  a  partial  renewal.     The  elec- 
tion usually  takes  place  by  scrutin  de  liste,  or  on  a  gen- 
eral ticket  for  the  whole  municipality  ;  but  in  a    city  of 
more    than    10,000    population    a    division    into    electoral 
districts  or  wards  may  be  made.1     Since,  however,  each 
ward  must  elect  no  less  than  four  councillors,   there  may  Method  of 
not  be  more  than  nine  wards  or  electoral  districts  even  in 
the  largest  cities.     Some  of  the  great  cities  have  been  thus 
divided  into  wards,  but  there  are  still  many  large  munici- 
palities in  which  no  division  has  been  made.     Frenchmen 
have,  apparently,  not  yet  reached  agreement  as  to  the  rela- 
tive merits  of  the  ward  and  general-ticket  systems.     In  The  general- 
England,  Germany,  and  the  United  States  the  ward  method  ward  sys- 
has  been  adopted  almost  everywhere  in  the  election  of  city  tems< 
councillors ;  but  in  at  least  nine-tenths  of  the  French  mu- 
nicipalities the  general-ticket  plan  is  maintained.     In  scores 
of  these  cities  twenty  or  more  councillors  are  balloted  for 
by  the  voters  every  four  years. 

It  was  not  the  intention  of  those  who  framed  the  mu-  Redistrfct- 
nicipal  code  that  there  should  be  any  gerrymandering  of  municipality, 
municipal  wards  in  order  that  the  exigencies  of  some  po- 
litical faction  might  be  served.     The  division  of  a  munici- 
pality into   wards   can  be  accomplished   only  with  some 
difficulty,  and  never  by  the  city  authorities  of  their  own 

1  The  law  also  permits  a  division  into  districts  if  a  commune,  though  having 
less  than  10,000  population,  is  composed  of  two  settlements  lacking  in  identity 
of  interests.  See  La  loi  municipale,  §  11. 


18 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


The  suf- 
frage. 


Qualifica- 
tions for 
voting  in 
French 
cities. 


action.  The  proposal  for  a  partition  may  emanate  from 
the  municipal  council,  but  the  final  action  upon  the  proj- 
ect must  be  taken  by  the  general  council  of  the  depart- 
ment in  which  the  commune  is  situated.  In  all  cases  there 
must  be  public  hearings  upon  the  question,  and  from  the 
action  of  the  departmental  authorities  an  appeal  may  be 
taken  to  the  appropriate  section  of  the  Council  of  State, 
which  is  the  highest  administrative  court  of  the  republic.1 
When  wards  are  once  established,  moreover,  their  boundaries 
are  rarely  changed.  It  is  not  necessary  that  each  ward 
should  be  allotted  an  equal  number  of  councillors  ;  provided 
none  has  less  than  four,  the  number  may  vary.  Hence, 
when  wards  grow  larger  or  smaller  in  population  there 
is  a  redistribution  of  councillors  and  not  a  rearrangement 
of  ward  lines.  The  electoral  division  is  therefore  a  more 
or  less  permanent  unit,  a  fact  which  enables  it  to  develop 
a  local  spirit  and  local  traditions. 

By  the  provisions  of  the  code,  councillors  must  be  elected 
by  "direct  universal  suffrage";2  and  the  voting  right  is 
given  to  all  male  French  citizens  who  have  attained  the 
age  of  twenty-one  years,3  and  who  have  been  actually  dom- 
iciled in  the  municipality  for  six  months  prior  to  the  com- 
pletion of  the  voters'  list.  Besides  these,  men  who  pay 
any  of  the  four  chief  taxes  levied  by  the  municipal  au- 
thorities are  entitled  to  vote  at  municipal  elections  even 
though  they  may  not  be  resident  in  the  commune.  Thus, 
a  man  who  has  his  place  of  business  in  the  city  and  pays 
taxes  on  it  is  not  debarred  from  voting  there  because  he 
may  reside  in  some  suburban  municipality.  He  may  not 
vote  in  more  than  a  single  commune,  but  he  may  choose 

1  For  the  procedure,  see  La  loi  municipale,  §  12  ;  also  M.  Juillet  Saint-Lager, 
Elections  municipales  (6th  edition,  by  C.  Vuillemot,  Paris,  1904),  15-27. 

2  La  loi  municipale,  §  14. 

8  Women  do  not  vote  in  any  French  election,  national,  departmental,  or 
municipal. 


THE   GOVERNMENT  OF  FRENCH  CITIES  19 

to  be  enrolled  either  where  he  pays  his  taxes  or  where 
he  resides.1  This  arrangement  has  proved  extremely  sat- 
isfactory to  a  considerable  class  of  business  men,  who  are 
frequently  much  more  interested  in  the  administrative 
affairs  of  the  large  cities  where  their  business  is  pursued 
than  in  the  administration  of  the  small  suburban  com- 
munities where  they  live.  In  the  United  States  a  voter 
must  be  enrolled  at  his  « legal  residence,"  wherever  this 
may  be ;  and  it  very  frequently  happens  to  be  in  a  differ- 
ent municipality  from  that  in  which  his  chief  financial 
interests  lie.  Many  large  American  cities,  like  New  York  Non-resi- 
and  Boston,  are  thus  deprived  of  the  votes  of  thousands 
of  influential  business  and  professional  men,  who,  because 
they  maintain  residences  in  the  suburban  cities  or  towns, 
may  neither  cast  their  ballots  nor  seek  to  hold  office  in 
the  metropolis.  Yet  these  are  the  men  who  are  most 
directly  interested  in  the  efficiency  and  economy  of  civic 
administration. 

The  municipal  franchise  in  France  represents  about  as  Disquaiffi- 
close  an  approximation  to  manhood  suffrage  as  is  to  be 
found  in  any  country.  Nowhere  in  France  is  there  any  edu- 
cational qualification,  or  any  requirement  that,  in  order  to 
secure  voting  rights,  a  man  must  own  or  occupy  any  property 
or  pay  any  taxes  or  have  any  income.  There  are,  however, 
some  disqualifications  similar  to  those  which  commonly 
exist  in  other  countries.  Thus,  the  right  to  vote  is  lost, 
either  for  a  term  of  years  or  perpetually,  whenever  a  voter 
has  been  convicted  of  certain  enumerated  offences,  the  list 
including  not  only  more  serious  crimes,  but  many  misde- 
meanors connected  particularly  with  violations  of  the 
election  laws  or  of  the  laws  regulating  the  formation  of 

1  La  loi  municipale,  §  14.  See  also  Joseph  Dorlhac's  De  V electoral  politique : 
etude  sur  la  capacite  electorate  et  les  conditions  d'exercice  du  droit  de  vote  (Paris, 
1890). 


20 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


The  voters' 
list. 


Method  of 
compiling 
the  list. 


clubs  and  secret  political  societies.1  Conviction  for  illegal 
voting,  for  example,  involves  perpetual  disfranchisement. 
When  any  French  court  of  justice  imposes  a  penalty 
which  carries  with  it  the  deprivation  of  voting  rights, 
this  action  is  duly  reported  by  the  court  official  to  the 
proper  administrative  authorities ;  hence  a  list  of  disfran- 
chised persons  is  always  at  hand  when  the  voters'  lists 
are  being  prepared. 

In  every  French  commune  there  is  kept  at  the  mairie, 
or  municipal  administrative  headquarters,  a  voters'  list 
(liste  electorate),  which  must  be  revised  annually  even 
though  in  some  years  no  election  is  held.  The  duty  of 
compiling  and  revising  this  roll  is  laid  upon  the  mayor 
of  the  commune ;  but  the  methods  to  be  pursued  are  care- 
fully detailed  by  law,2  for  the  same  lists  are  used  in  both 
national  and  local  elections.3  Ordinarily  a  single  list  serves 
for  the  whole  commune ;  but  when  the  municipality  has 
been  divided  into  wards,  or  election  districts,  there  is  a 
separate  list  for  each  district.  The  immediate  task  of 
compiling  the  list  is  intrusted  to  a  board  of  three  men, 
including  the  mayor  ex  officio,  a  member  appointed  by  the 
prefect  of  the  department  in  which  the  municipality  is 
located,  and  a  third  member  selected  by  the  municipal 
council.4  When  the  municipality  is  divided  into  election 
districts  there  is  a  board,  constituted  in  the  same  way,  for 

1  Most  of  the  existing  disqualifications  were  provided  for  in  the  organic 
decree  promulgated  by  Louis  Napoleon  after  his  coup  d'e~tat  (Decret  organique 
du  2  fevrier  1852,  in  Duvergier's  Collection,  LII.  81-92).     A  complete  table  of 
present  disqualifications  may  be  found  in  E.  Reisser  and  G.  Ridel's  Guide  elec- 
toral pratique  (Paris,  1901),  11-19. 

2  These  methods  are  set  forth  comprehensively  in  Ernest  C^nac's  La  liste 
electorale,  sa  composition  etsa  revision  annuelle  (Paris,  1890)  ;  A.  de  Taillandier's 
Manuel  formulaire  de  la  revision  de  la  liste  electorale  (Paris,  1893)  ;  J.  Daure's 
Manuel  pratique  de  la  revision  des  listes  electorates  (Paris,  1898)  ;  and  Robert  de 
Prevoisin's  Guide  pratique  tfelecteur  (Paris,  1906). 

8  Prior  to  1884  different  lists  were  used. 
4  In  Paris  the  system  is  somewhat  different. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  FRENCH  CITIES  21 

each  district ;  but  in  this  case  the  mayor  is  represented 
on  each  board  by  an  adjoint  designated  for  the  purpose. 
These  boards  perform  their  work  of  compiling  the  lists 
every  January,  the  list  of  the  previous  year  being  used  as 
a  basis  in  each  case.  The  procedure  is  very  simple.  The 
names  of  all  those  who  have  died,  left  the  commune,  or 
become  disqualified  since  the  last  revision  are  struck  off  ; 
and  the  names  of  all  those  who  before  the  end  of  March 
will  have  attained  the  age  of  twenty-one  years,  or  will 
have  completed  their  six  months'  residence  in  the  mu- 
nicipality, are  put  on.  All  these  data  can  be  had  from 
the  records  of  the  etat  civil  kept  at  the  mairie.  The  work 
of  preparing  the  list  is  not  performed  publicly ;  even  rep- 
resentatives of  political  factions  are  not  permitted  to  be 
present. 

When  the  preliminary  work  of  compiling  the  list  has 
been  completed,  two  written  copies  of  the  roll  are  made, 
one  for  the  prefect,  the  other  to  be  retained  at  the  mairie 
for  public  inspection.     Any  voter  may  enter  an  objection  Protests, 
to   names  included  or  omitted,  and  may  file  his  protest 
either    orally   or  in   writing.     When  all   such   objections 
have  been  noted,  and  when  the  list  has  remained  open  to 
public  inspection  for  three  weeks,  it  is  recommitted  to  the 
board  for  revision.     For  this  work  two   additional  mem- 
bers are  appointed  by  the  municipal  council,  so  that  the  Therevis- 
revising  board  consists  of  five  persons.     During  the  first 
week  in  February  the  various  objections  are  considered  by 
the   board   in   camera,  and   such  changes  in   the   original 
list  are  made  as  are  deemed  proper.     From  the  decisions 
of  the  revising  board   an  appeal  may  be   taken,  without 
any  cost,  to  the  local    judge    (Juge  de  paix) ;    and  from 
the  rulings  of  this  official   a   further  appeal,  upon  points  Appeals 
of  law  only,  may  be  carried  to  the  Court  of  Cassation,  decisions, 
which  is  the  highest  civil  court  of  the  republic.     On  the 


22 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


Small  cost 


Lack  of 
safeguards. 


last  day  in  March  the  list  is  declared  closed.  It  is  then 
placed  in  the  archives  of  the  mairie  ;  but  copies  are  posted 
for  inspection,  and  one  copy  is  transmitted  to  the  prefect 
to  be  kept  on  file  at  the  prefecture.  Every  voter,  also,  is 
upon  application  to  the  mayor  entitled  to  make  for  himself 
a  written  copy.  After  the  final  posting  no  changes  may 
be  made  except  as  the  result  of  belated  judicial  decisions. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  appeals  from  the  rulings  of  the  revis- 
ing board  are  comparatively  few,  a  circumstance  which  is 
the  more  remarkable  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  members 
of  the  board  are  usually  laymen,  none  too  well  versed  in 
the  somewhat  intricate  jurisprudence  relating  to  the  elec- 
toral rights  of  Frenchmen. 

An  interesting  feature  of  the  system  of  preparing  the 
voters'  list  is  the  very  small  cost  which  the  compilation 
and  revision  impose  upon  a  French  municipality.  The 
members  of  the  boards  that  perform  the  work  of  compil- 
ing and  revising  serve  without  any  remuneration  ;  and 
frequently,  even  in  some  of  the  large  cities,  the  lists  are 
not  printed  but  are  written  by  hand.  The  whole  expense 
is  so  small  that  even  in  the  largest  cities  it  is  not  put  into 
the  municipal  budget  as  a  separate  item,  but  is  lumped 
in  with  incidental  clerical  expenditures.  On  the  other 
hand,  one  may  venture  to  criticise  the  lack  of  complete 
publicity  which  attends  the  work  of  revising  the  lists, 
and  to  express  some  doubt  whether  the  safeguards  in  the 
way  °^  judicial  appeals  are  an  adequate  protection  against 
improper  inclusions  or  omissions.  It  is  true  that  on  the 
whole  the  revising  boards  in  French  cities  have  been  re- 
markably fair  and  honest,  and  that  although  their  sessions 
are  secret  their  decisions  are  public  ;  but  here  and  there  in- 
stances of  the  scandalous  "padding"  of  the  lists  have  been 
brought  to  light.  One  naturally  recalls  the  famous  case  of 
Toulouse  of  a  decade  or  more  ago,  when  a  rigid  scrutiny  of 


THE   GOVERNMENT  OF  FRENCH  CITIES  23 

the   municipal  voting   lists   disclosed   the   fact   that   they 

contained  several  thousand  fictitious  names.     Although  it 

would  be  grossly  unfair  to  judge  the  general  workings  of 

the  system  by  this  unusual  instance,  the  fact  remains  that 

the  work  of  compiling  and   revising  the  lists  is  performed 

in  executive  session  by  men  who  are  more  or  less  directly 

interested  in  having  certain  names  added  or  omitted.     The  Some  re- 

Toulouse   incident  would,  it  is  true,   probably   not   have  ^  publicity. 

occurred  had  any  citizen  made  it  his  business  to  examine 

the  list  closely  ;  and  it  undoubtedly  would  not  have  been 

possible  had  the  French  system  of  compiling  the  voters' 

rolls,  like  that  used  in  English  cities,  provided  for  public 

revision  by  a  semi-judicial  body,  or  indeed  if  printed  copies 

of  the  lists  had   been  broadly  distributed.     At  the  same 

time,  the  French  arrangement  seems  to  afford  much  greater 

security  against  fraudulent  practices   than   the  American 

plan  of  enrolling,  usually  without  any  investigation,  all 

who  come  to  the  registration  bureaus  and  vouch  for  right 

to  be  put  on  the  lists. 

To  be  eligible  for  election  to  the  municipal  council  one  Eligibility 
must  first  be  enrolled  as  a  voter,  and  must  in  addition  be 


at  least  twenty-five  years  of  age.1     It  is  not  required  that 
the  candidate  should  be  a  resident  voter  ;  non-resident  tax-  Non-resi- 
payers,  if  voters,  are  eligible,  but  not  more  than  one-fourth  dates!*" 
of  the  membership  of  the  council  may  be  drawn  from  this 
class.2     In  the  larger  cities  this  limitation  is  hardly  neces- 
sary ;  for  in  France,  as  in  America,  the  voters  endeavor  to 
select  councillors  from  the  residents  of  the  municipality.  Non-resi- 
Even  in  large   cities,   however,  examples  of  non-resident 


councilmen  are  by  no  means  rare  ;  and  in  the  smaller  munici-  common  in 

the  larger 

panties  one  frequently  finds  landowners  or  retired  business  communes. 

1  La  loi  municipale,  §  31.    See  also,  on  the  qualifications  of  candidates, 
Robert  de  Prevoisin's  Guide  pratique  d'electeur  (Paris,  1906). 

2  Ibid.  §  81. 


24  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

men  retaining  their  membership  in  the  council  although 
they  have  years  since  moved  away  from  the  commune  and 
taken  up  residence  in  Paris  or  in  some  provincial  city. 
When  a  city  is  divided  into  election  districts  a  resident  of 
one  district  is  not  debarred  from  candidacy  in  another ;  but 
this  privilege  seems  to  be  utilized  very  much  less  in  France 
than  in  England.  In  fact,  the  feeling  that  candidates 
for  public  office  should  reside  in  the  constituencies  which 
they  seek  to  represent,  though  not  so  strong  in  France  as 
in  the  United  States,  has  gained  more  headway  there  than 
in  any  other  European  country. 

Disquaim-  Although  in  general  any  voter  twenty-five  years  of  age 
cations.  .g  g^g^^g  to  election  as  a  municipal  councillor,  there  are 
some  important  disqualifications  from  candidacy  enu- 
merated in  the  code,  most  of  them  connected  with  the 
tenure  of  various  national  or  departmental  offices.1  A 
person  holding  one  of  these  designated  posts  may  be 
elected  to  the  council,  but  within  ten  days  after  the  elec- 
tion he  must  either  resign  his  previous  office  or  become  dis- 
qualified to  sit  at  the  council-board.2  All  persons  directly 
connected  with  the  providing  of  public  utilities,  or  acting 
as  direct  parties  to  any  contract  with  the  municipality, 
are  similarly  disqualified.3  A  somewhat  unusual  provision 
makes  ineligible  to  membership  in  the  council  all  "  per- 
sonal servants,"  such  as  coachmen,  butlers,  and  the  like ; 
and  another  stipulates  that  "  in  municipalities  of  five 
hundred  inhabitants  or  more,  ancestors  and  descendants, 
brothers,  and  near  relatives  by  marriage  may  not  be  at  the 
same  time  members  of  the  same  municipal  council."  4 

1  La  loi  municipale,  §§  32-35.  2  Ibid.  §  34. 

8  Decision  of  the  Council  of  State,  December  26,  1896. 

4  La  loi  municipale,  §  35.  The  exact  scope  of  the  various  disqualifications 
has  been  defined  by  the  Council  of  State  in  a  formidable  list  of  decisions  ren- 
dered during  the  last  twenty  years  or  more.  A  convenient  summary  of  these  is 
given  in  Reisser  and  Ridel's  Guide  electoral  pratique  (Paris,  1901),  119-145. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF   FRENCH  CITIES  25 

*~ 
The  French  municipal  code  makes  no  provision  what-  Absence  of 

.  ,.  ...          formal 

ever  for   any  system  01  primaries,  caucuses,  nomination  nomination 
papers,   or,   indeed,   for   any    formal    method    of   putting  Procedare- 
candidates   in   the   field.     In   fact,   the  law  gives    official 
recognition  to  no  preliminary  proceedings  on  the  part  of 
a  political  organization  as  an  incident  of  municipal  elec- 
tions.    In    order    to    prevent    multiple    candidatures    in 
national  contests,   a  law  was  passed    in    1889    requiring 
every  aspirant  to  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  to  file  a  decla- 
ration of  his  candidacy  with  the  prefect  of  the  department 
in  which  his  constituency  is  located  ;  but  this  law  has  no 
application  to   the   choice  of   municipal   councillors.     In- 
deed, there  is  perhaps  no  feature  of  the  French  system  of 
municipal  elections  that  commands  the  attention  of   the 
American  student  of  comparative  administration  so  forci- 
bly as  the  entire  absence  of  any  provision  for  nominating 
candidates  in  advance  of  the  actual  polling.     So  far  as  the 
election    authorities    are    concerned,    they    recognize    no  NO  official 
candidates  for  municipal  office ;  they  set  before  the  voter  ofTandi-°n 
at  the  polls  no  list  of  aspirants ;  they  restrict  his  entire  dates- 
freedom  of  choice  in  no   way   whatever.     This  is  not  to 
say,  however,  that   in  French   cities  there  is  no  candidacy 
for  office.     Candidates  there  are  in  plenty,  as  in  the  cities 
of  every  other  country  ;  but  they  receive  no  official  recog- 
nition as  such.     In  the  months  preceding  a  municipal  elec- 
tion the  various  political  organizations  and  partisan  clubs  Unofficial 
reach  decisions  as  to  the  men  upon  whom  they  will  con- 
centrate their  support ;  and  on  the  eve  of  the  polling  the 
contest  narrows  itself  down  to  rival  candidates  or  slates  of 
candidates  about  as  definitely  as  in  American  municipali- 
ties.    To  this  practice,  however,  the  law  lends  no  inspira- 
tion or  encouragement ;  it  proceeds  upon  the  theory  that 
the  voter  shall  nominate  and  elect  at  one  and  the  same 
time. 


26 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


Incidents  of 
the  election 
campaign. 


Date  of 

municipal 

elections. 


Sunday 
elections. 


The  whole  spirit  of  French  legislation  relating  to  election 
campaigns  is  in  the  direction  of  freedom  of  action  on  the 
part  of  voters  and  candidates  alike.  Hence  it  is  that, 
although  every  unofficial  poster  and  placard  must  bear  a 
government  stamp,  for  which  a  small  fee  is  exacted,  a 
special  exemption  from  this  fee  is  made  in  the  case  of 
campaign  literature,  which  the  candidates  and  their  friends 
provide  in  profusion.1  In  the  matter  of  political  gather- 
ings, too,  there  has  been  a  similar  exception.  Until  about 
a  year  ago  the  law  required  that  no  public  meeting  should 
be  held  unless,  twenty-four  hours  in  advance  of  such  meet- 
ing, a  declaration  had  been  lodged  with  the  proper  police 
authorities  by  two  responsible  citizens,  who  should  become 
accountable  for  the  proper  conduct  of  the  gathering ;  but 
in  the  case  of  political  rallies  only  two  hours'  notice  was 
insisted  upon.2  At  present  no  declarations  are  required 
for  meetings  of  any  sort.8 

The  exact  date  of  a  municipal  election  is  announced  by  a 
decree  of  the  prefect,  and  this  decree  must  be  published  in 
the  municipality  at  least  fifteen  days  prior  to  the  date  set 
for  the  polling.  The  law  requires  that  the  election  shall 
take  place  on  the  first  Sunday  in  May  in  every  fourth  year.4 
National  and  municipal  elections  are  never  held  upon  the 
same  date,  an  arrangement  the  propriety  of  which  seems 
never  to  have  been  questioned  by  Frenchmen.  In  fixing 
dates  for  by-elections  (that  is,  elections  to  fill  vacancies 
in  the  council)  the  prefect  has  entire  discretion,  provided 
always  that  he  choose  a  Sunday.  This  practice  of 
holding  elections,  both  national  and  local,  upon  Sundays 
rather  than  upon  week-days  is  characteristic  not  only  of 

1  Lot  du  29  juillet  1881,  in  Bulletin  des  lots  de  la  republique  franqaise,  1881, 
II.  126-138.     See  also  Alfred  Dodanthun's  Des  afflches  electorates  (Paris,  1903). 

2  Loi  du  SOjuin  1881,  in  Bulletin  des  lois,  1881,  II.  346-347. 
8  Loi  du  28  mars  1907. 

*  La  loi  municipale,  §  41. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  FRENCH  CITIES  27 

France  but  of   the  other    Catholic   countries  of  Western 
Europe.     It  is  regarded  as  an  advantageous  arrangement,  Merits 
in  that  it  serves  in  some  degree  to  prevent  the  operations  for™gd 
of   polling    from    interfering  with  the    regular  course    of  Practice. 
daily  business,  besides  affording  an  unusual  opportunity 
for  every  voter  not  only  to  indicate  his  choice  but  to  have 
time  to  inform  himself  of  the  claims  of  rival  candidates. 
Frenchmen    seem    to    look    upon    Sunday    voting    as    in 
thorough  accord  with  their  ideas  of  the  entire  equality  of 
all  citizens  at  the  polls,  because  the  system  affords  to  all  its  relation 
voters,  of  whatever  social   class,  an  equal  opportunity   to  poijed.VOte 
exercise  their  right  of  suffrage.     It  is  suggested  that  the 
large  ratio  of  polled  to  registered  votes  which  is  a  charac- 
teristic of  French  elections  may  be  due  in  some  measure  to 
the  practice  of  choosing  Sundays  for  polling-days. 

The  places  to  be  used  as  polling-rooms  are  designated  Poiiing- 
by  the  prefect  in  his  decree  convoking  the  electors.     In  the  p 
smaller  municipalities  one  place  suffices  ;  but  in  the  cities 
a  number  of  polling-rooms  are  provided,  and  are  located 
where  the  prefect  thinks  they  will  be  most  convenient  for 
the  voters.     Whenever  practicable,  public  buildings,  par- 
ticularly schoolhouses,  are  used  for  this  purpose.     When 
there  is  but  one  polling  establishment  in  the  municipality,  it  Officials  in 
is  in  charge  of  the  mayor  ;  when  there  are  several,  the  vari- 


ous  polls  are  presided  over  by  the  mayor  and  adjoints,  and 
if  these  are  not  sufficiently  numerous,  by  the  councillors  in 
order  of  seniority.  If  there  should  happen  to  be  more  polls 
than  there  are  members  of  the  municipal  government,  the 
mayor  may  designate  voters  to  take  charge  of  them.1  The  oll_ 

Whenever  a  body  of  Frenchmen  are  gathered  together  bureau. 

1  An  exhaustive  treatment  of  the  law  and  the  administrative  decisions  relat- 
ing to  municipal  elections  is  embodied  in  Juillet  Saint-Lager's  Elections  munici- 
pales  (6th  edition,  by  C.  Vuillemot,  Paris,  1900;  re-edited  under  the  title  Guide 
general  des  elections,  by  C.  Robany,  Paris,  1908).  See  also  Victor  Jeanvrot's 
Manuel  des  elections  municipals  (Paris,  1892). 


28  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

for  any  public  or  semi-public  proceeding,  their  first  care 
is  not  to  select  a  chairman,  as  is  the  custom  among  Ameri- 
cans, but  to  constitute  a  bureau,  or  committee  of  direction, 
to  which  is  intrusted  the  conduct  of  the  business.  The 
law  requires  that,  when  a  polling-place  is  opened,  "  the  two 
oldest  and  the  two  youngest  voters  present  "  shall  be  called 
upon  by  the  officer  in  charge  to  act  as  "assessors," 
provided  they  are  able  to  read  and  write.  These  four 
with  the  officer  himself  constitute  the  polling-bureau,  and 
Method  of  by  majority  vote  provisionally  decide  all  questions  that 
constituting  mayr  CQme  up  Curing  the  day.  Three  out  of  the  five  mem- 
bers must  always  be  present  while  the  polling  is  going  on.1 
Sometimes  there  is  keen  competition  for  the  honor  of 
serving  on  the  poll-bureau ;  but  more  often,  perhaps,  the 
presiding  officer  has  some  difficulty  in  persuading  four 
voters,  whether  old  or  young,  to  give  him  their  assistance. 
It  is  customary,  therefore,  to  arrange  the  matter  before- 
hand, lest  when  the  poll  opens  there  may  not  be  present  a 
sufficient  number  to  constitute  the  bureau.  A  poll-clerk 
or  secretary,  chosen  by  the  bureau,  completes  the  per- 
sonnel of  the  polling-place.  This  official  is  not,  however,  a 
member  of  the  poll-bureau,  nor  has  he  any  voice  in  the 
decision  of  mooted  questions  that  may  arise  during  the 
day.  It  is  his  duty  merely  to  keep  the  records  of  the  poll, 
including  written  minutes  of  all  matters  decided  by  vote 
of  the  bureau.  These  items  are  recorded  in  proper  form, 
that  they  may  be  available  in  case  appeals  from  the  deci- 
sions of  the  bureau  are  carried  to  the  administrative 
Poiiregu-  courts  after  the  day  of  the  election.  In  order  that  the 
decorum  and  dignity  of  the  polling-place  may  be  con- 
served, members  of  the  bureau  are  forbidden  to  discuss 
political  questions  in  the  room,  and,  needless  to  say,  are 

1  La  loi  municipale,  §  19. 


THE.  GOVERNMENT  OF  FRENCH  CITIES  29 

prohibited  from  interesting  themselves  in  the  success  of 
any  of  the  candidates.  It  is,  however,  somewhat  at  odds 
with  the  method  of  conducting  elections  in  the  United 
States  to  put  the  polls  in  charge  of  men  who  very  fre- 
quently are  themselves  candidates  for  reelection  and  who 
have  therefore  a  direct  interest  in  the  various  matters 
that  come  before  them.  No  official  connected  with  the 
poll,  it  may  be  noted,  receives  any  remuneration  for  his 
services,  another  point  in  which  the  French  methods  are 
sharply  at  variance  with  the  American. 

The  paraphernalia  of  the  French  polling-booth  are  very  The  ballot- 
simple.     On  a  large  table  in  the  room  is  placed  the  urne  box' 
electorate,  which  is  nothing  but  a  wooden  ballot-box  with  a 
slit  in  its  lid,  a  symbol  of  democracy  that  sometimes  bears 
rather  crude  evidence  of  its  local  manufacture.     Near  by 
stands  another  open  wooden  box,  in  which  are  deposited 
such  cartes  electorates,  or  official  notifications  of  the  election,  The  carte 
as  have  not  been  distributed  to  voters  either  because  the  * 
latter  have  not  been  .found  at  home  or  because  they  have 
not  called  for  their  cards  at  the  mairie,  as  the  case  may  be. 
A  written  copy  of  the  voters'  list  completes  the  brief  cata- 
logue of  essentials.     When  the  poll  is  open,  each  voter  as 
he  enters  the  room  presents  his  election  card,  which  is  a 
printed  notice  that  has  been  sent  to  him  from  the  mairie, 
sometimes  by  mail,  some  days  prior  to  the  polling.     On  it 
are  printed  the  date  and   place  of  the  election,  together 
with  a  statement  of  the  hours  during  which  the  poll  is 
open,  the   whole   authenticated   by  the   signature   of   the 
mayor  and  the  seal  of  the  municipality.     In  the  larger  cities 
it  has  become  customary  to  require  the  voter  to  call  at  the 
mairie  for  this  notice;   and  sometimes,  though  very  rarely, 
his  signature  is  secured  as  a  receipt  for  it,  and  then  is  used  Hentifica- 
as  a  means  of  checking  personation  at  the  poll  in  case  any 
attempt  at  such  imposture  should  be  made.    It  is  not  abso- 


30  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

lutely  necessary  that  the  voter  should  present  his  carte 
electorate  at  the  poll;  in  the  event  of  his  failing  to  do  so 
any  other  satisfactory  identification  may  be  accepted,  espe- 
cially since  the  missing  card  will  usually  be  found  among 
the  undistributed  notices  in  the  box  already  mentioned. 
The  main  point  is  that  every  voter  must  either  be  known 
to  members  of  the  poll-bureau  or  must  establish  his  iden- 
tity in  some  way  wholly  satisfactory  to  them.  That  this 
regulation  has  been  salutary  is  evidenced  by  the  almost 
entire  absence,  even  in  the  largest  cities,  of  any  accusa- 
tions of  personating,  repeating,  or  resorting  to  kindred  sin- 
ister practices  concerning  which  allegations  are  so  freely 
bandied  about  in  American  cities. 

The  ballot.  At  French  elections  no  official  ballot  is  provided  ;  each 
voter  is  supposed  to  furnish  his  own.  The  law  requires 
only  that  the  ballot  which  he  presents  shall  be  a  slip  of 
white  paper,  without  external  mark,1  upon  which  there  shall 
have  been  printed  or  written  plainly  the  names  of  those  per- 
sons for  whom  he  wishes  to  have  his  vote  recorded.  The 
ballot  must  be  prepared  outside  the  polling-room,  never 
within ;  and  it  must  be  presented  by  the  voter  in  person. 
Voting  by  proxy  is  not  permitted,  although  this  concession 
has  been  suggested  as  a  means  of  increasing  the  number  of 
polled  votes  without  opening  the  doorway  for  forgery  and 
fraud ;  for,  it  is  urged,  every  ballot  tendered  by  proxy 
would  be  authenticated  by  its  accompanying  carte  electo- 
rate? When  the  ballot  is  presented  to  the  officer  in  charge 
of  the  poll,  the  latter,  having  satisfied  himself  that  only 
one  slip  has  been  handed  to  him,  drops  it  into  the  ballot- 
box  (urne  electorale).  At  the  same  time  he  returns  the 

1  "Le  papier  du  bulletin  doit  §tre  blanc  et  sans  signe  exterieur"  (La  loi 
municipale,  §  26). 

2  See,  for  example,  A.  Guy's  Des  moyens  de  diminuer  les  abstentions  et  en 
particulier  du  vote  par  correspondance  (Paris,  1902). 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  FRENCH  CITIES  31 

carte  electorate  to  the  voter,  first  tearing  off  a  corner  in 
order  that  the  card  may  not  by  any  chance  be  made  to 
serve  again.  The  torn  corner  of  the  card  is  put  into  the 
adjacent  box,  and  the  name  of  the  voter  is  then  checked 
off  the  list. 

Although  the  law  takes  it  for  granted  that  each  voter  Ballots  pre- 
will  prepare  his  own  ballot,  this  is  not  usually  done.  On  c^fdates. 
the  days  preceding  the  polling,  ballots  are  made  up  by 
candidates  or  their  supporters  and  distributed  by  their 
agents.  Not  infrequently  they  are  scattered  about  from 
house  to  house,  or  mailed  to  all  voters  be'fore  the  election ; 
in  any  case  they  are  to  be  had  from  agents  of  the  various 
candidates  who  congregate  about  the  entrance  of  the 
polling-place  on  the  day  of  the  election.  Thus  it  comes 
about  that  a  man  rarely  goes  to  the  trouble  of  preparing 
his  own  voting-paper.  He  is  indeed  a  fastidious  voter  Nature  of 
who  cannot  obtain  a  ballot  that  fits  his  own  particular  papSeer8. 
taste ;  for  not  only  are  "  straight  tickets "  provided  for 
those  who  support  without  any  variation  the  nominees 
of  the  political  factions,  but  papers  are  prepared  with 
almost  every  possible  combination  of  candidates.  In 
other  words,  ballots  representing  what  Americans  would 
call  "  split  tickets "  are  provided  by  those  candidates  "  Split 
who  are  interested  in  inducing  voters  to  make  departure 
in  their  behalf  from  the  regular  partisan  lists.  There  is, 
moreover,  nothing  to  prevent  a  voter  from  crossing  out 
one  or  more  names  on  the  printed  ballot  and  writing  in 
others ;  this  is,  indeed,  a  very  common  practice.  Never- 
theless, the  system  seems  to  set  a  premium  on  "voting 
the  straight  ticket " ;  for  in  those  municipalities  in  which 
the  ballot  takes  place  au  scrutin  de  liste  the  slate  of  the 
dominant  party  usually  goes  through  intact. 

If  a  voter  so  wishes,  his  choice  may  be  registered  with  The  ballot  is 

potentially 

entire  secrecy ;  for,  according  to  the  letter  of  the  law,  the  secret. 


32 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


Ballots  are 
often  distin- 
guishable. 


Hours  of 
polling. 


Orderly 
conduct  of 
polling. 


"  slip  of  plain  white  paper  without  external  mark  "  ought 
to  afford  no  indication  of  what  is  written  or  printed 
within.  The  courts,  however,  have  been  somewhat  liberal 
in  their  interpretation  of  this  clause  in  the  code ;  for  they 
have  held  ballots  on  tinted  paper  and  of  various  shapes 
to  be  acceptable.  Hence  it  has  come  about  that  the 
ballots  provided  on  behalf  of  different  groups  of  can- 
didates are  sometimes  distinguishable  by  their  differences 
in  shape  and  shade  ;  and  it  is  therefore  not  always  difficult 
for  those  within  the  polling-room  to  tell  how  the  average 
elector  has  voted.1  The  ballot,  it  may  be  repeated,  is 
secret  only  when  the  voter  takes  the  trouble  to  make  it 
so  ;  and  this  he  does  not  commonly  do.  The  French  sys- 
tem, indeed,  except  that  it  relieves  the  municipal  treas- 
ury from  the  expense  of  printing  official  ballots,  seems 
to  possess  no  substantial  advantage  over  the  use  of  the  so- 
called  Australian  ballot,  now  generally  employed  in  Ameri- 
can cities. 

The  polling  in  French  municipal  elections  may  not 
extend  over  more  than  a  single  day  ;  but  the  exact  hours 
during  which  votes  will  be  received  are  fixed  by  the  pre- 
fect, with  the  proviso,  however,  that  polls  must  be  open  for 
at  least  six  consecutive  hours.  Any  disobedience  of  the 
prefect's  orders  in  any  of  these  matters  affords  adequate 
ground  for  nullifying  an  election.  As  a  rule,  the  poll  is 
opened  about  eight  o'clock  in  the  morning  and  closed  late 
in  the  afternoon.  Immediately  after  Mass  the  voters  con- 
gregate, and  in  a  few  hours  the  larger  part  of  the  vote  is 
cast.  Despite  the  somewhat  excitable  nature  of  the  French 
voter,  the  polling  is  conducted,  almost  without  exception, 

1  Some  time  ago  the  French  Chamber  of  Deputies  gave  assent  to  a  measure 
designed  to  make  the  ballot  absolutely  secret  by  directing  that  no  votes  should 
be  received  except  in  uniform  envelopes  provided  for  the  purpose,  and  that  all 
polling-booths  should  be  equipped  with  marking  compartments  (cabines  tfisole- 
ment).  This  measure  did  not,  however,  receive  the  concurrence  of  the  Senate. 


THE   GOVERNMENT  OF  FRENCH  CITIES  33 

in  a  dignified  and  orderly  manner.  The  officer  in  charge 
of  the  room  is  vested  by  law  with  wide  powers  for  the 
prevention  of  disorder  at  elections.  To  secure  this  end, 
he  may  call  upon  the  regular  police  officers,  or  he  may 
even  summon  the  assistance  of  soldiers  to  quell  any  men- 
acing disturbance ;  but  soldiers  may  not,  under  any  cir- 
cumstances, be  stationed  at  the  polls,  a  prohibition  which 
harks  back  to  earlier  days,  when  the  presence  of  the  mili- 
tary at  the  polling-places  was  looked  upon  as  a  means  of 
affording  "moral  support"  to  those  candidates  who  enjoyed 
the  favor  of  the  national  authorities. 

When  the  hour  for  closing  the  poll  has  arrived,  the  ballot-  Counting 
box  is  opened  by  the  presiding  officer  and  the  total  number 
of  ballots  ascertained.  This  total  is  compared  with  that 
of  the  names  checked  off  on  the  polling-list,  and  if  the 
two  numbers  do  not  correspond  the  fact  is  at  once  noted  on 
the  records.  As  a  further  means  of  verification  the  torn 
corners  of  the  cartes  electorates  are  also  usually  counted; 
but  this  precaution  is  not  required  by  law.  If  more 
than  three  hundred  ballots  have  been  cast,  the  officer  in 
charge  of  the  poll  selects  from  among  the  voters  who  may 
happen  to  be  about  the  room  as  many  assistants  as  he 
may  deem  necessary  to  expedite  the  counting  of  the  bal- 
lots, any  voter  who  can  read  and  write  being  eligible. 
These  men  take  their  places  at  the  table,  and  the  ballots 
are  distributed  among  them.  The  counting  proceeds  pub- 
licly ;  all  voters  who  can  get  into  the  room  are  admitted, 
and  are  allowed  to  stand  about  as  the  enumeration  pro- 
ceeds. As  soon  as  the  results  are  totalled  they  are  announced 
by  the  officer  in  charge.  Then  all  spoiled  or  disputed  Spoiled 
ballots,  all  records  and  other  papers,  are  sealed  up  and 
transmitted  to  the  prefect  or  the  subprefect,1  and  the  ballots 

1  The  number  of  spoiled  ballots  is  usually  very  small,  for  the  law  deals  gen- 
erously with  ballots  which  are  not  prepared  in  strict  accordance  with  the  require- 


34 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


An  absolute 
majority 
necessary 
for  election 
on  the  first 
balloting. 


The  supple- 
mentary 
election. 


Differences 
between  the 
French  and 
Prussian 
systems  of 
supplement- 
ary elec- 
tions. 


which  have  been  properly  marked  are  burned  in  the 
presence  of  such  voters  as  may  have  remained  to  witness 
this  formality. 

In  order  to  be  elected,  a  candidate  for  admission  to  the 
council  must  have  secured  a  clear  majority  of  the  votes 
cast,  and  in  addition  must  have  polled  in  his  favor  at  least 
one-fourth  of  the  total  enrolled  vote.  If  he  satisfies  the 
first  condition,  he  rarely  fails  to  fulfil  the  second ;  for,  al- 
though the  political  indifference  of  the  Frenchman  has  be- 
come proverbial,  the  percentage  of  the  total  enrolled  vote 
which  is  regularly  polled  at  municipal  elections  does  not 
compare  unfavorably  with  that  in  other  countries.  It  is 
an  interesting  fact  that  the  national  elections,  which  are 
held  in  August,  draw  out  a  smaller  number  of  voters 
than  do  the  municipal  elections  in  May.  A  successful 
candidate,  then,  must  have  received  one-half  of  the  polled 
vote  and  one-fourth  of  the  enrolled  one.  If  no  candi- 
date shall  have  met  both  these  conditions,  none  is  declared 
elected,  and  a  supplementary  election  takes  place  the 
Sunday  following.1  If  the  conditions  are  satisfied  by  a 
smaller  number  of  candidates  than  the  quota  to  be  elected, 
those  who  have  fulfilled  the  requirements  are  declared  to 
have  been  chosen,  and  the  second  election  is  held  for  the 
remaining  posts  only.  In  these  supplementary  elections  a 
mere  plurality  is  sufficient  to  elect. 

The  procedure  in  French  supplementary  elections  is, 
fortunately,  different  from  that  in  similar  elections  held 
in  Prussian  cities.  In  the  latter,  as  will  be  shown  later, 
the  contestants  in  the  second  election  are  narrowed  down 
to  those  candidates  who  have  stood  highest  at  the  first 

ments.  Thus,  a  ballot  is  not  spoiled  if  it  contains  more  names  than  there  are 
posts  to  be  filled  ;  in  such  cases  the  vote  is  recorded  for  the  names  that  come 
first  on  the  paper. 

1  La  lot  municipale,  §  30.  In  the  national  elections  the  supplementary  poll- 
ing takes  place  on  the  second  Sunday  following  a  general  vote. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  FRENCH  CITIES  35 

general  polling :  no  votes  cast  for  other  than  these  are  valid. 
In  France,  on  the  contrary,  the  voter's  choice  is  as  free  at 
the  second  polling  as    at  the  first ;  indeed,  it  is  possible, 
although  not  common,  for  the  voters  to   select  by  mere 
plurality,  at  the  later  polling,  one  who  was  not  a  candidate 
at  the  regular  election.     In  the  smaller  cities,  where  elec- 
tions take  place  by  general  ticket,  supplementary  pollings  Frequency 
are  not  often  required,  for  the  whole  party  slate  usually  mentary5 
goes  through  intact ;  but  in  the  cities  that  are  divided  into  electlons- 
wards  second  pollings  in  some  of  the  precincts  are  almost 
certain  to  be  necessary.     In  Paris,  at  the  elections  of  1904, 
supplementary  pollings  were  required  in  twenty-five  out  of 
the  eighty  council  districts.1     The  vote  at  the  second  elec- 
tion is  usually  somewhat  smaller  than  that  polled  at  the 
regular  time.2 

For  the  commission  of  electoral  frauds,  or  for  any  im-  Provisions 
proper  interference  with  the  conduct  of  elections,  penalties  corrupt 
are  provided  both  by  the  penal  code  and  by  a  considerable  Practlces- 
number  of  special  laws.     Personation,  repeating,  intimida- 
tion, bribery,  disorders  at  or  near  the  polling-place,  and  so 
on,  are  all  cognizable  by  the  regular  criminal  courts  of  the 
land.     Complaints  regarding  irregularities  in  election  pro-  Contested 
cedure  are,  however,  heard  not  by  these  tribunals,  but  by 
the  administrative  courts,  which  alone  have  power  to  un- 
seat a  councillor  by  declaring  an  election  void.     Such  com- 
plaints, if  not  already  made  at  the  poll  and  duly  inscribed 
on  the  poll  records,  may  be  offered    by  any  qualified  voter  Procedure 
who  chooses  to  lodge  with  the  prefect  or  the  subprefect,  Sections! 
within  five  days  after  the  polling,  a  written  protest  with  a 
petition  for  annulment.     On  receipt   of  this  protest   the 
prefect  must  notify  the  councillor  whose  election  has  been 

1  Encyclopedic  municipale  de  la  ville  de  Paris  (Paris,  1904),  I.  15-21. 

2  M.  de  Pindray,  De  Vabstentionisme  en  matiere  electorate  et  des  moyens 
propres  a  y  remedier  (Paris,  1902). 


36 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN   CITIES 


No  limita- 
tion of  ex- 
penditures 
for  legiti- 
mate pur- 
poses. 


Elections 
more  eco- 
nomical 
than 
formerly. 


impugned,  and  must  require  him  to  file  his  defence  within 
five  days.  An  investigation  (enquete)  is  thereupon  held  by 
the  administrative  court  of  the  prefecture  (conseil  de  prefec- 
ture), and  upon  the  evidence  presented  this  body  publishes 
a  decree  either  confirming  or  annulling  the  election.  If, 
however,  the  issue  is  not  on  a  question  of  fact  but,  as  it 
almost  always  is,  on  a  point  of  law,  no  inquest  is  necessary. 
As  a  rule,  elections  are  not  voided  except  for  important  and 
inexcusable  irregularities  ;  they  are  never  annulled  for  mere 
technical  violations  of  the  law.  From  the  rulings  of  the 
council  of  the  prefecture  appeals  may  be  taken  by  any  of 
the  parties  concerned  to  the  Council  of  State  ;  and  such  ap- 
peals are  very  numerous,  hundreds  of  them  being  made 
after  every  general  election.1 

It  may  be  noted  here  that  in  France  there  is  not,  as  in 
England,  any  definite  limit  set  upon  the  amount  of  money 
which  a  candidate  for  election  to  a  municipal  office  may 
expend  in  the  course  of  his  electoral  campaign.2  Despite 
the  emphasis  which  the  French  have  laid  upon  the  prin- 
ciple of  equality  of  opportunity  at  the  polls,  they  have  not 
deemed  it  necessary  to  restrict  the  amount  which  a  candi- 
date may  disburse  for  legitimate  expenses.  Still,  the  sums 
spent  are  usually  so  small  that  it  may  be  doubted  whether 
the  average  expenditure  in  France  is  any  larger  than  the 
maximum  limit  fixed  by  law  in  the  cities  of  Great  Britain. 
It  is  true  that  during  the  Second  Empire  the  so-called 
"  official "  nominees  were  so  vigorously  supported  by  the 
higher  authorities  that  candidates  who  sought  successfully 
to  oppose  them  were  forced  to  spend  liberal  sums  in  their 
preelection  campaigns  ;  but  since  1871  this  state  of  affairs 
has  undergone  a  decided  change. 

1  Charles  Uze,  De  la  nullite  en  maliere  <T elections  municipales  (Paris,  1896). 

2  The  jurisprudence  of  the  Council  of  State  relating  to  municipal  elections 
may  be  studied  in  Chardenet,  Panhard,  and  Ge"rard,  Les  elections  municipales 
(Paris,  1896). 


THE   GOVERNMENT  OF  FRENCH  CITIES  37 

This  is  not  to  say  that  under  the  Third  Republic  the  Relation  of 
higher  authorities  have  strictly  applied  any  policy  of  thorTtiesU~ 
laissez-faire  to  local  elections.  On  the  contrary,  one  fre-  t*)1<*!al 

elections. 

quently  encounters  vigorous  complaint  that  the  prefects 
and  subprefects  interest  themselves  entirely  too  much  in 
the  municipal  elections  within  their  respective  jurisdictions. 
It  would,  however,  seem  out  of  consonance  with  the  spirit 
of  French  local  administration  if  the  agents  of  the  cen- 
tral government  were  to  abstain  entirely  from  any  part  in 
local  politics  ;  for  through  the  prefects  and  subprefects  the 
state  controls  an  enormous  patronage,  and  the  temptation  Use  of 
to  use  it  for  political  purposes  in  local  elections  is  naturally 
hard  to  resist.  It  is,  of  course,  true  that  the  pressure  which 
the  central  authorities  are  now  able  to  exert  is  less  direct 
than  it  was  in  the  days  when  the  mayors  and  ad  joints  of 
municipalities  were  appointed  by  the  national  government ; 
but,  even  though  all  municipal  officials  are  nowadays 
chosen  locally,  they  have  still,  in  the  exercise  of  nearly  all 
their  more  important  functions,  to  reckon  with  the  prefect, 
a  state  officer.  From  his  point  of  view  it  is  of  course  The  prefect 
highly  desirable  that  the  municipal  authorities  should  be  of 
the  same  political  allegiance  as  himself ;  for  such  harmony 
serves  to  smooth  the  relations  between  the  prefecture  and 
the  mairies.  It  is  not  a  matter  for  surprise,  therefore,  that 
the  prefects,  who  are  to  some  extent  the  political  organ- 
izers as  well  as  the  administrative  agents  of  the  central 
government,  should  frequently  seem  to  show  more  than 
a  mere  academic  interest  in  municipal  election  campaigns. 

With  reference  to  the  procedure  at  elections,  something  Party- 
should  be  said  regarding  the  place  and  influence  of  polit- 
ical  parties  in  municipal  affairs.     The  decentralization  of  electlons- 
the  French  national  party  system  is  well  known  ;  and   the 
wide  ramifications  of  this  disintegration  as  shown  in  the 
practical  workings  of  national   administration  have  been 


38 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


Decentrali- 
zation a 
feature  of 
all  party  or- 
ganization. 


National 
and  local 
parties. 


Radical 
element 
in  local 
politics. 


Lack  of  ex- 
citement at 
elections. 


duly  emphasized  by  all  writers  on  matters  connected  with 
the  politics  of  the  republic.1  In  general  one  may  say  that 
this  splitting  up  of  voters  into  groups  or  factions  is  as 
fully  characteristic  of  municipal  as  of  national  politics, 
and  that  each  faction  in  the  nation  has  its  prototype  in 
the  municipalities.  It  is,  of  course,  true  that  the  appear- 
ance of  important  local  issues  sometimes  serves  to  ob- 
literate for  the  time  being  certain  of  these  dividing  lines, 
and  to  rearrange  the  local  voters  in  new  groups ;  but,  in 
the  main,  political  parties  poll  about  the  same  strength  in 
local  as  in  national  elections.  In  all  the  larger  French 
cities  the  elections  are  conducted  on  a  partisan  basis ;  and 
with  a  few  important  exceptions  the  national  and  local 
party  divisions  coincide  so  nearly  that  the  outcome  of  a 
general  municipal  election  is  closely  watched  from  Paris 
as  affording  a  good  indication  of  the  gain  or  loss  in  strength 
of  the  various  parties  in  the  republic  as  a  whole.  In 
France,  as  elsewhere,  the  cities  are  the  strongholds  of  radi- 
calism ;  it  is  from  them  that  the  radical  groups  in  the 
national  government  derive  most  of  their  strength.  So 
powerful,  indeed,  is  this  element  in  the  municipal  electorate 
that  practically  all  the  larger  cities  are  controlled  by  it, 
till  their  municipal  elections  have  become  little  more  than 
contests  between  two  radical  factions,  one  more  advanced 
than  the  other.  Each  faction  gathers  about  itself  such 
strength  as  it  can  secure  from  the  smaller  political  follow- 
ings,  its  relative  success  in  this  endeavor  determining  its 
ultimate  victory. 

The  political   psychology   of    the    Frenchman    presents 
more  or  less  of  a  puzzle   to   the   foreign  student  of  com- 


1  For  a  discussion  of  this  matter,  see  A.  L.  Lowell,  Governments  and  Parties 
in  Continental  Europe  (2  vols.,  Boston,  1897),  I.  101  ff.  ;  J.  E.  C.  Bodley, 
France  (2  vols.,  London,  1900)  ;  and  L.  de  St.  Preuil,  ISimpuissance  dcs partis 
politiques  actuels  en  France  (Paris,  1898). 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  FRENCH  CITIES  39 

parative  institutions.  That  a  race  which  possesses  such 
natural  impulsiveness,  and  which,  as  history  abundantly 
shows,  can  be  so  easily  stirred  to  united  action,  should 
consistently  display  such  unusual  poise  and  calm  in  hotly 
contested  elections,  is  indeed  a  matter  that  seems  to  call 
for  comment.  To  the  casual  observer  the  French  voter 
seems  the  acme  of  apathy  and  indifference ;  no  one  who 
watches  a  French  municipal  campaign  can  fail  to  get  the 
impression  that,  save  for  the  stir  created  by  a  small  group 
of  politicians,  the  local  elections  do  not  even  ruffle  the 
surface  of  everyday  life.  It  may  be  that  this  general  lack 
of  interest  shown  by  the  average  voter  is  due  in  part  to  French  and 
the  comparative  inefficiency  of  the  local  party  organiza-  partyor- 
tions  ;  for  neither  in  vigor  nor  in  machine-like  discipline  do  gamzation- 
these  compare  with  their  prototypes  in  American  cities. 
One  might  almost  say,  indeed,  that  the  French  do  not 
possess  local  party  organizations  in  the  American  sense  of 
the  term. 

In  the  comites  electoraux,  or  local  political  clubs,  how-  The  clubs, 
ever,  —  societies  which  seek  to  combine  political  and  social 
aims,  —  the  adherents,  or  at  least  the  leading  adherents,  of 
each  political  faction  have  elementary  leagues  that  enable 
them  in  some  degree  to  work  together  for  a  common  end. 
These  bodies,  though  alike  in  their  main  tendencies,  display 
so  great  variation  in  method  of  organization,  in  composi- 
tion, in  purpose,  and  in  the  nature  of  their  operations  that 
it  is  difficult  to  speak  of  them  in  general  terms.1 

As  a  rule,  the  comites  electoraux  do  not,  like  the  Ameri-  Their  or- 
can  local  party  organizations,  include  in  their  membership  g 
all  the  party  adherents  in  the  ward  or  the  city,  but  only 

1  The  political  "  clubs,"  that  played  so  important  a  r61e  during  the  republic 
of  1848  (see  Alphonse  Jouet,  Les  clubs,  leur  histoire  et  leur  role,  Paris,  1891), 
were  suppressed  during  the  Second  Empire,  and  in  their  old  form  have  not  been 
revived  since  1871.  The  present-day  comites  are  regulated  by  the  Loi  du  I" 
juillet  1901  (Bulletin  des  lois,  1901,  II.  1273  ff.) 


40 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


Their 
personnel. 


Their  ac- 
tivities. 


Their  selec- 
tion of 
candidates. 


the  leaders  and  the  more  active  and  prominent  partisans. 
Nor  do  they  follow  local  geographical  lines  with  any  strict- 
ness ;  indeed,  their  jurisdictions  very  frequently  overlap. 
Few  of  them  have  any  fixed  headquarters,  some  local  cafe 
commonly  serving  as  a  meeting-place.  Each  club,  how- 
ever, has  its  own  permanent  committee,  or  bureau  of  con- 
trol, the  members  of  which  are  usually  taken  from  the 
ranks  of  local  politicians  or  government  officials.  The 
clubs  of  the  more  conservative  factions  are  drawn  largely 
from  the  ranks  of  the  petits  rentiers,  or  lower-class  business 
men,  and  are  often  dominated  by  petty  functionaries,  the 
underlings  of  the  prefect,  although  such  officers  are  forbid- 
den by  law  to  take  any  active  part  in  election  campaigns. 
The  radical  clubs,  on  the  other  hand,  find  their  leaders 
among  professional  men,  journalists,  and  those  prominent 
in  the  labor  unions.  In  addition  to  the  comites  there  are 
in  France  many  secret  organizations  —  ostensibly  of  a  fra- 
ternal nature,  like  the  freemasons  —  which  interest  them- 
selves in  political  matters  to  a  very  marked  degree.1 

The  clubs  meet  at  intervals  throughout  the  year  in  a 
social  way,  frequently  listening  to  political  speakers  and 
almost  always  discussing  current  political  topics.  On 
the  eve  of  an  election  this  phase  of  their  activities  becomes 
more  pronounced,  general  meetings  of  voters  (reunions 
electorales)  are  arranged,  and  in  due  time  certain  candidates 
are  selected,  indorsed,  or  assured  of  assistance.  As  a  rule, 
however,  there  is  no  vigorous  contest  for  support  or  in- 
dorsement ;  on  the  contrary,  the  clubs  frequently  have  diffi- 
culty, after  selecting  their  candidates,  in  persuading  them  to 
accept  candidacy.  A  comite  electoral  has  but  a  lax  disci- 

1  The  very  extensive  influence  exerted  by  one  of  these  secret  organizations 
(La  Federation  du  Grand-Orient  de  France)  upon  the  distribution  of  patronage 
by  the  national  authorities  was  clearly  disclosed  by  the  scandals  connected  with 
the  promotion  of  various  army  officers  some  four  years  ago.  See  L'annee  poli- 
tique,  1904,  pp.  399  ff. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  FRENCH  CITIES  41 

plinary  power  over  its  members  and  following;  and  it 
possesses  neither  the  funds  nor  the  machinery  necessary  to 
give  its  candidates  that  vigorous  and  united  support  which 
an  American  party  organization  usually  affords  its  regular 
nominees.  In  the  larger  French  cities,  however,  the  work-  Laboring- 
ingmen's  clubs  have  during  recent  years  developed  a  unity 
and  a  discipline  somewhat  akin  to  those  features  of  Ameri- 
can political  parties,  and  hence  have  been  able  to  afford 
their  own  candidates  more  effective  support.  In  fact,  the 
increased  influence  of  the  labor  and  socialist  elements  in 
the  political  affairs  of  the  larger  French  cities  has  been  due 
in  no  slight  degree  to  their  superior  solidity  and  greater  effi- 
ciency in  organization. 

The  results  of  this  party  decentralization  upon  the  Results  of 
general  course  of  municipal  politics  are  so  numerous  that 
they  would  require  too  much  space  to  be  enumerated  in 
detail.  One  that  cannot  be  passed  over,  however,  is  seen 
in  the  considerable  number  of  supplementary  elections  for  increases 
which  it  is  largely  if  not  wholly  responsible.  When  a 
municipal  party  is  sufficiently  strong,  it  is  frequently 
able,  in  an  election  by  general  ticket,  to  carry  through 
its  full  slate  on  the  first  ballot.  There  are,  indeed,  some 
cities  in  France  in  which  the  smaller  factions  find  them- 
selves during  long  periods  of  years  without  any  repre- 
sentation whatever  in  the  municipal  councils,  a  state  of 
things  that  has  in  certain  quarters  given  rise  to  a  demand 
for  the  adoption  of  some  plan  whereby  the  minority  fac- 
tions may  have  assurance  of  proportional  representation.1 
When,  however,  no  political  faction  is  strong  enough 

1  Ambroise  Rendu  on  "La  representation  proportionnelle  dans  les  conseils 
municipaux,"  in  Eevue  municipale,  March  3,  1900  ;  and  Severin  de  La  Chapelle, 
Le  principe  proportionnel  dans  les  elections  municipales  franqaises  en  1904 
(Paris,  1904) .  A  committee  of  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  (commission  du  suf- 
frage universel)  and  a  committee  of  the  Paris  municipal  council  have  each 
recently  recommended  the  adoption  of  a  proportional  system. 


42  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

to  command  a  majority  for  its  candidates,  the  election 
usually  becomes  a  scramble  for  office  on  the  part  of  too 
many  aspirants,  no  one  of  whom  has  much  chance  of 
securing  an  absolute  majority  of  votes  on  the  first  ballot. 
Each  faction,  however  small  in  numbers,  puts  forward  its 
own  list,  even  though  it  has  not  the  slightest  hope  of 
success  ;  then,  when  the  supplementary  election  is  at  hand, 
many  of  these  candidates  withdraw  and  swing  their  in- 
fluence to  those  who  are  more  likely  to  succeed.  The  re- 
sult is  that  in  many  cities  municipal  politics  are  character- 
ized by  all  sorts  of  deals  and  dickerings  between  the 
various  factions,  the  final  victory  at  the  polls  often  going 
to  those  who  are  the  most  adept  at  gathering  to  their  sup- 
port the  odds  and  ends  of  political  organizations.  Local 
Lowers  the  politics  are  thus  frequently  reduced  to  an  undesirable 
caipoiitics"  plane>  the  attention  of  the  voters  being  often  concentrated 
more  upon  men  than  upon  principles,  and  personal  matters 
of  a  somewhat  petty  nature  playing  a  larger  role  than 
broad  questions  of  municipal  policy. 

Calibre  of  Although  the  absence  of  official  nominations,  the  de- 
'e  '  centralization  of  political  parties,  and  the  practice  of 
supplementary  polling  are  all  wholly  foreign  to  American 
ideas  of  procedure  at  municipal  elections,  the  results,  as 
exemplified  in  the  caliber  of  the  men  elected  to  local 
office  in  France,  will  bear  comparison  with  the  results  of 
American  methods.  It  is  true  that  the  character  of  the 
men  chosen  to  the  French  municipal  councils  varies  con- 
siderably in  municipalities  of  different  size  ;  but  it  may  in 
general  be  said  that  even  in  the  larger  cities,  despite  the  ex- 
istence of  manhood  suffrage,  the  propertied  element  of  the 
population  has  a  large  representation  in  the  ranks  of  the 
council.  During  the  last  decade  or  more,  however,  the  in- 
creasing strength  of  the  socialistic  propaganda  has  served, 
in  large  centres,  to  draw  into  the  ranks  of  the  councils 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  FRENCH  CITIES  43 

many  representatives  of  the  working  classes,  as  well  as  Recent 
many  young  professional  men,  particularly  lawyers  and 
journalists,  who  have  been  inclined  to  identify  themselves  element, 
with  advanced  radicalism.  Accordingly,  the  councils  in 
practically  all  the  large  cities  are  less  conservative  in 
their  make-up  than  they  were  in  the  years  following  the 
enactment  of  the  code ;  in  some  cities,  indeed,  the  radical 
elements  have  even  obtained  a  preponderance  in  the 
councils.  But  radicalism  in  the  ranks  of  the  French  munici- 
pal council  does  not,  as  in  England,  necessarily  mean  the 
pursuance  of  a  policy  of  municipal  socialism ;  for  the  re- 
straining hand  of  the  prefect  must  be  taken  into  account, 
and  the  temper  of  the  central  government,  as  exercised 
through  its  prefectoral  agents,  has  consistently  aimed  to 
restrain  the  municipal  authorities  from  proceeding  too 
rapidly  along  the  paths  of  innovation.1 

It  would  be  presumptuous  for  an  outsider,  none  too  well  Character 
qualified  by  residence  among  the  French  people,  to  venture  elected  to 
upon    any  general    comparison  between    the  caliber    and  t^e  council, 
standing    of    French    municipal  councillors  and  those    of 
other  countries  ;  for,  of  all  nations,  France  is  the  one  in 
which  sound  social  and  political  generalizations  seem  the 
most  facile  but  in  the  end  prove  the  most  difficult.     The 
opinion  expressed  by  Dr.  Albert  Shaw,  that  the  councillors  Comparison 
of  French  cities  form  a  less  substantial  set  of  men  than  Bother168 
those  of  Germany  or  England,  may  be  taken  as  the  con-  countries- 
elusion  to  which  any  outside  student  of  politics  is  very 
likely  to  arrive ;  for  in  a  matter  of  this  sort  one  can  pur- 
sue no  scientific  method  of  comparison,  but  must  inevitably 
rely  upon  one's  own  powers  of  observation.     At  any  rate, 
few  who  have  any  familiarity  with  political  conditions  in 
French  and  American  cities  will  venture  to  deny  that,  city 

1  E.  Bourdeau  on  "Le  socialisme  municipal,"  in  Revue  des  deux  mondes, 
July,  1900. 


44 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


Organiza- 
tion of  the 
council 
after  the 
elections. 


Regular 
sessions. 


Sessions  are 
public. 


Special 
sessions. 


for  city,  the  French  councillors  compare  very  favorably 
with  the  common-councilmen  of  American  municipalities, 
whether  the  comparison  be  made  on  the  ground  of  sub- 
stantial interests,  business  ability,  administrative  experi- 
ence, or  general  reputation  for  integrity  and  public  spirit. 

After  the  supplementary  elections  have  been  held,  the 
municipal  council  meets  and  is  duly  organized.  A  table 
of  seniority  is  prepared,  and  the  members-elect  take  prec- 
edence according  to  this  list.  One  of  them  is  selected 
secretary  of  the  body ;  and,  as  the  post  is  largely 
honorary,  one  or  more  assistants  are  chosen  from  outside 
the  membership  of  the  council  to  do  the  secretarial  work. 
At  this  organizing  session  the  council  likewise  elects,  in 
a  manner  explained  later  on,  a  mayor  and  one  or  more 
adjoints,  the  senior  councillor  presiding  while  the  mayor 
is  being  selected.  In  addition  to  the  May  session,  a 
municipal  council  must  hold  at  least  three  regular  ses- 
sions during  the  year,  —  namely,  in  August,  November, 
and  February.  The  exact  date  upon  which  the  council 
convenes  is  fixed  by  an  arrete  of  the  prefect ;  or,  in  the 
absence  of  such  a  decree,  it  may  be  convoked  by  the 
mayor.  Meetings  are  held  at  the  mairie,  or  municipal 
building  ;  business  done  at  any  council-meeting  convened 
elsewhere  has  been  held  by  the  Council  of  State  to  be 
illegal.  Ordinarily  the  deliberations  of  the  council  are 
open  to  the  public,  but  even  in  the  largest  cities  they  seem 
to  attract  small  audiences.1 

In  addition  to  the  four  regular  sessions  the  prefect 
may  at  any  time  authorize  special  meetings,  or  the  mayor 
may  convoke  the  council  of  his  own  accord  ;  moreover,  a 


1  Executive  sessions  may  be  decided  upon  at  any  time  by  majority  vote  of 
the  councillors  present  {La  lot  municipale,  §  54).  For  further  details  relating 
to  procedure,  see  D.  de  Maithol's  Code  des  conseillers  municipaux  (Paris,  1885), 
and  H.  Gourgeois's  Code  manuel  des  conseillers  municipaux  (Paris,  1890). 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  FRENCH  CITIES  45 

special  session  must  be  called  at  the  request  of  a  majority 

of  the  councillors.     Whenever  a  meeting  is  held  otherwise 

than  as  a  result  of  the  prefect's  orders,  this  official  must 

forthwith  be  notified,  and  must  be  told  the  reasons  which 

dictated  the  calling    of  a  special   session.     It   should    be 

emphasized,  however,  that  the  prefect  cannot  prevent  the 

council  from  convening.     A  regular  session  of  the  council  Limits  upon 

may  not  ordinarily  last  more  than  fifteen  days ;  but  the  of^esskms. 

regular  session  at  which  the  municipal  budget  is  considered 

may  be  prolonged  to  any  period  not  exceeding  six  weeks, 

and    from  the  prefect  or  the  subprefect  an  extension  of 

time  may  be  had  for  any  good  reason.     For  special  sessions 

the  law  fixes  no  limit. 

A  feature  of  French  conciliar  procedure  is  the  custom  Council 
of  continuing  in  session  day  after  day,  as  legislatures  com-  i^stfof8 
monly  do.  In  Germany,  England,  and  the  United  States  ™™*&l 
the  city  council  meets  at  frequent  intervals,  —  weekly, 
fortnightly,  or  monthly,  —  and  only  for  a  single  afternoon 
or  evening  at  a  time,  a  practice  which  has  its  advantage 
in  permitting  urgent  matters  to  be  brought  promptly  be- 
fore the  council  and  thus  obviating  the  necessity  of  de- 
puting its  regular  functions  to  any  standing  committee  or 
other  subordinate  body.  In  France  the  council  meets 
much  less  frequently ;  hence,  when  it  does  convene,  it 
finds  so  many  matters  waiting  for  consideration  that  in 
the  larger  cities  it  usually  has  to  prolong  its  sessions 
over  several  days.  When  its  work  is  done,  it  adjourns 
much  after  the  fashion  of  a  parliament  or  a  legislature. 
The  result  of  this  system  of  holding  council-meetings  is 
that  business,  unless  it  be  urgent,  must  often  wait  until 
the  next  quarterly  sederunt,  a  delay  which  is  sometimes  a 
source  of  great  inconvenience.  Moreover,  the  practice  has 
undoubtedly  brought  about  the  transfer  to  the  mayor  and 
adjoints  of  many  routine  functions  which,  if  the  council 


46 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


Limitations 
on  the  scope 
of  the  coun- 
cil's delib- 
erations. 


Penalties 
lor  contra- 
vention. 


were  in  the  habit  of  meeting  frequently,  would  probably 
be  dealt  with  by  that  body  or  by  one  of  its  committees. 

Some  of  the  regulations  relating  to  council  procedure 
seem  to  indicate  that  the  national  authorities  have  viewed 
with  suspicion  the  policy  of  permitting  to  councillors  free- 
dom of  deliberation  and  discussion.  In  the  United  States 
the  presiding  officer  of  the  municipal  council  usually  has  the 
entire  responsibility  of  keeping  discussions  within  proper 
and  pertinent  bounds  ;  but  in  France  the  municipal  code 
makes  express  provision  that  the  council  may  not  during 
session  discuss  any  matter  which  is  not  clearly  within  the 
scope  of  its  powers.  Councillors  may  not  concern  them- 
selves with  any  matter  of  national  or  departmental  politics, 
and  may  not  engage  in  criticisms  of  the  policy  and  actions 
of  the  prefect  or  of  any  other  of  the  higher  authorities. 
Any  infraction  of  this  regulation  may  bring  upon  the 
body  its  suspension  by  prefectoral  decree.  Indeed,  when- 
ever a  prefect  deems  the  discontinuance  of  a  municipal 
council  urgently  desirable  in  the  public  interest,  he  is 
empowered  to  suspend  the  councillors  from  office  for 
any  period  not  exceeding  one  month ;  or,  if  this  discipline 
be  deemed  insufficient,  he  may  report  the  matter  to  the 
president  of  the  republic,  who  is,  in  turn,  vested  by  the 
code  with  authority  to  dissolve  the  council  altogether  and 
to  replace  it  for  the  time  being  with  a  municipal  commis- 
sion composed  of  from  three  to  seven  members  appointed  by 
himself.1  This  commission  may,  however,  deal  only  with 
urgent  matters  ;  it  may  in  no  case  pass  the  annual  budget 
or  make  any  change  in  the  personnel  of  municipal  adminis- 
tration.2 Within  two  months,  moreover,  an  election  of  a 


1  La  lot  municipals,  §  43. 

2  Ibid.  §  44.     Some  interesting  discussions  concerning  the  powers  of  these 
interim  commissions  (delegations  speciales)  may  be  found  in  the  Revue  generale 
cT  administration,  especially  1897,  II.  65 ;  and  1899,  I.  183. 


THE   GOVERNMENT  OF  FRENCH  CITIES  47 

new  council  must  take  place.1     Councillors  who  have  been 
removed  from  office  are  eligible  to  reelection. 

This  power  of  suspension  and  dissolution  gives  to  the  The  power 
central  authorities  an  effective  whiphand  over  the  munici- 
pal  council,  enabling  them  to  hold  that  body  rigorously 
to  the  observance  of  its  duties  and  responsibilities.  Natu- 
rally, however,  such  an  unusual  power  has  in  it  many  ele- 
ments of  danger.  When,  for  instance,  the  prefects  and  the 
councils  represent,  as  they  very  frequently  do,  political 
interests  that  are  antagonistic,  this  semi-dictatorial 
authority  may  readily  be  made  a  weapon  of  political 
pressure,  a  means  of  visiting  upon  the  representatives  of 
one  party  faction  the  wrath  of  its  opponents.  On  the 
whole,  however,  the  powers  of  suspension  and  dissolution  Checks  upon 
do  not  appear  to  have  been  used  arbitrarily  or  injudiciously;  the  higher 
for,  it  must  be  remembered,  the  prefects  are  responsible  to  authonties- 
the  minister  of  the  interior,  who,  again,  may  be  at  any 
time  interpellated  and  called  to  account  in  the  national 
parliament  for  any  acts  of  his  subordinates.  Even  the 
president  of  the  republic,  in  the  exercise  of  his  power  of 
dissolution,  acts  only  upon  the  advice  of  his  ministers. 
When,  therefore,  a  municipal  council  is  suspended  or  dis- 
solved, the  action  of  the  higher  authorities  may  be 
promptly  brought  before  the  direct  representatives  of  the 
people,  whose  failure  to  approve  it  is  tantamount  to  a 
vote  of  wrant  of  confidence  in  the  ministry.2  The  effectual 
guarantee  against  arbitrary  action  is  thus  to  be  found  in 
the  responsibility  of  the  central  executive  to  the  national 
legislature.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  municipal  councils  have 
since  1884  been  suspended  or  dissolved  only  on  very  in- 

1  La  loi  municipale,  §  46. 

2  A  discussion  of  the  principle  of  ministerial  responsibility  as  applied  in  the 
French  national  government  may  be  conveniently  found  in  Lowell's  Governments 
and  Parties,  I.  117-134. 


48  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

frequent  occasions,  usually  not  unless  they  have  plainly 
neglected  their  functions,  —  as,  for  example,  when  they 
have  failed  to  hold  the  required  meetings.  During  the 
period  of  the  Second  Empire,  however,  the  prerogative 
was  grossly  abused  by  the  imperial  authorities,  who  used 
their  large  powers  frequently  and  arbitrarily.  Much  of 
this  time  Paris,  Lyons,  and  several  other  cities  were 
administered  by  commissions,  their  municipal  councils 
being  regularly  dissolved  on  the  first  sign  of  hostility  to 
the  imperial  government.  Arbitrary  interference  from 
Paris  at  that  time  is  not  to  be  wondered  at;  but  that  it 
should,  even  in  its  restricted  form,  be  continued  by  the 
present  government  is,  in  view  of  republican  traditions, 
somewhat  surprising. 

Restrictions  In  addition  to  the  foregoing  important  limitations,  many 
procedure!  minor  restrictions  relating  to  procedure  have  been  imposed 
by  law  upon  the  French  municipal  council.  It  may  not 
proceed  with  business,  for  instance,  unless  a  majority 
of  the  councillors  are  present ;  but  if,  after  two  successive 
meetings  called  at  intervals  of  three  days,  this  quorum 
has  not  been  secured,  such  members  as  happen  to  be 
on  hand  may  proceed.1  Provision  is  made  that  the  seat 
of  any  councillor  who  has  been  absent  from  three  con- 
secutive sessions  may  be  declared  vacant  by  the  prefect 
unless  the  absentee  furnishes  satisfactory  reasons  to  the 
council.  Members  are  permitted  to  resign  from  office, 
but  their  written  resignations  must  be  filed  with  the 
prefect.  On  all  questions  a  majority  of  the  councillors 
present  and  voting  is  decisive,  and  in  the  event  of  a  tie  the 
mayor  has  a  casting  vote.2  Three  different  methods  of 

Methods  of  . . .      , 

voting.         voting  at  council-sessions  are  recognized  by  law:    (1)    by 

1  La  loi  municipale,  §  50. 

2  Ibid.  §  61.     The  mayor  may  not  refuse  to  exercise  this  prerogative  (see 
Revue  generate  cT administration,  1894,  I.  287). 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OP  FRENCH  CITIES  49 

the  ordinary  standing  vote,  which  does  not  involve  the  use 
of  a  ballot  and  which  is  the  usual  method  of  submitting 
questions  ;  (2)  by  non-secret  ballot  (scrutin  public)  ;  and  (3) 
by  secret  ballot  (scrutm  secret^.  At  the  demand  of  one- 
fourth  of  the  councillors  the  non-secret  ballot  —  that  is  to 
say,  a  ballot  on  which  the  names  of  councillors  are  signed 
—  may  be  employed  ;  the  secret  ballot  may  be  called  into 
service  by  one-third  of  the  members.  This  latter  method 
must  be  employed  when  the  council  proceeds  to  the  election 
of  the  mayor  or  the  ad  joints,  or  of  any  other  official  whom 
it  has  power  to  appoint.  The  open  ballot  serves  only  as 
a  means  of  having  the  votes  of  councillors  recorded  in 
the  council  proceedings  (proces-verfiaP) ;  it  is  to  all  intents 
equivalent  to  the  American  system  of  vote  by  roll-call. 

Although,  as  has  been  said,  the  deliberations  of  the  Executive 
council  are  open  to  the  public,  provision  is  made  for  secret 
sessions  if  such  are  deemed  desirable  by  a  majority  of  the 
councillors.  Prior  to  1871  council-meetings  were  always 
private ; 1  indeed,  this  secrecy  was  regarded  as  one  of  the 
most  objectionable  features  of  the  system  of  communal  ad- 
ministration during  the  Second  Empire.  Even  after  1871 
the  authorities  of  the  Third  Republic  lent  sanction  to  the 
practice  for  the  time  being,  although  the  desirability  of 
public  council-sessions  was  on  more  than  one  occasion  de- 
bated in  the  French  parliament.2  The  minutes  (com/pte-  Publication 
rendu}  of  every  session,  whether  secret  or  open,  must  be 
posted  at  the  door  of  the  mairie  within  eight  days  after 
the  close  of  the  meeting ;  and  a  copy  of  them,  or  of  any 
other  records,  must  be  furnished  to  any  voter  who  de- 
mands them.8 

1  Loi  sur  r organisation  municipale,  May  5,  1885,  §  22.     This  law  may  be 
found  in  Duvergier's  Collection,  LV.  136-144. 

2  Journal  officiel,  Chambre   des  Deputes,   12  mai  1877,  12  fevrier  1883,  6 
juillet  1883  ;  SSnat,  8  et  9  fevrier  1884,  28  mars  1884. 

8  La  loi  municipale,  §§  66-58. 


50 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


Powers  of 
the  council. 


Division  of 
powers 
between 
national  and 
local  au- 
thorities. 


Classifica- 
tion of  the 
council's 
powers. 


The  powers  and  duties  of  the  French  municipal  council 
are  set  forth  at  length  in  three  or  four  articles  that 
may  fairly  be  said  to  constitute  the  most  comprehensive 
and  the  most  important  part  of  the  whole  code.1  This 
section  of  the  law  opens  with  the  broad  statement  that 
"  the  council  regulates  by  its  deliberations  the  affairs  of 
the  commune,"  and  then  proceeds  to  limit  this  general 
grant  of  power  and  to  impose  restrictions  upon  the  way  in 
which  it  may  be  exercised.  Those  who  drew  up  the  law 
of  1884  fully  recognized  the  importance  of  this  part  of  it, 
and  gave  much  consideration  to  the  various  provisions 
that  were  finally  inserted.  In  regard  to  the  proper  division 
of  powers  between  the  council  on  the  one  hand  and  the 
mayor  and  his  ad  joints  on  the  other,  there  was  not  much 
difference  of  opinion  ;  but  as  to  what  powers  should  be 
given  to  the  council  to  be  exercised  independently,  and  what 
should  be  given  to  it  to  be  used  subject  to  the  strict  control 
of  the  prefect,  there  was  a  good  deal  of  disagreement.  As 
finally  framed,  therefore,  the  article  embodied  the  results  of 
compromises  between  those  members  of  the  drafting  com- 
mission who  favored  local  autonomy  and  those  who,  on 
the  other  hand,  were  partisans  of  centralization.  Only  as 
this  fact  is  clearly  borne  in  mind  may  the  scope  of  juris- 
diction now  possessed  by  the  city  council  in  France  be 
properly  understood. 

The  general  powers  (attributions)  granted  to  the  council 
by  the  municipal  code  may  be  conveniently  grouped  into 
three  classes.  Some  are  purely  advisory,  the  initiative 
resting  with  the  higher  authorities  and  the  council  having 
nothing  but  the  privilege  of  tendering  its  advice,  which 
may  or  may  not  be  accepted.  A  larger  number  of  powers 
may  be  exercised  by  the  council  of  its  own  initiative,  but 


1  La  loi  municipale,  §§  61,  68-70. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  FRENCH  CITIES  51 

they  are  effective  only  when  the  approval  of  the  higher 
authorities  has  been  obtained.  A  third  group  includes  the 
prerogatives  which  the  council  possesses  independently, 
and  for  the  exercise  of  which  it  requires  no  outside  con- 
currence.1 These  three  classes  of  powers  are  not,  it  is  true, 
made  absolutely  distinct ;  on  the  contrary,  the  Council  of 
State  has  on  very  many  occasions  been  called  upon  to  de- 
fine jurisdictions  that  apparently  overlapped.  The  mass  of 
administrative  jurisprudence  which  has  accumulated  upon 
the  subject  is,  indeed,  so  formidable  that  the  foreign  stu- 
dent who  essays  a  thorough  mastery  of  it  will  find  his 
task  a  difficult  one.  No  more  is  attempted  here,  therefore, 
than  a  general  survey  of  the  council's  more  important 
prerogatives. 

Certain  powers  of  the  council  are,  as  we  have  seen,  ad-  Advisory 
visory ;  that  is  to  say,  there  are  some  matters  upon  which  J 
full  liberty  of  decision  is  retained  by  the  higher  authorities, 
but  which  may  not  be  acted  upon  till  the  advice  of  the 
council  has  been  requested.2  The  deciding  officials  are  not 
bound  to  follow  advice  when  it  is  tendered,  and  when  a 
council  refuses  to  give  its  opinion  the  authorities  may  pro- 
ceed without  it;  but  advice  must  be  asked  as  a  prelimi- 
nary to  valid  action.3  In  this  class  of  powers  belong  various 
matters  relating  to  the  changing  of  parochial  boundaries,  to 
the  administration  of  the  system  of  poor  relief,  the  laying 
out  of  main  streets  and  highways,  the  acceptance  of  gifts 
and  legacies  by  charitable  institutions  situated  in  the  munici- 

1  An  exceedingly  clear  analysis  of  the  exact  scope  of  the  powers  committed 
to  the  councils  by  the  code  may  be  found  in  Morgand's  La  lot  municipale,  I. 
397-476.     See  also  Dalloz  and  Verge1,  Code  des  lois  polit iques  et  administrative* 
(5  vols.,  Paris,  1887-1904),  Vol.  I.,  under  "Commune";  and  H.  Berthelemy, 
Traite  de  droit  administratif  (5th  ed.,  Paris,  1908),  197  ff. 

2  La  loi  municipale,  especially  §  70. 

8  The  Council  of  State  has  decided  that  the  higher  authorities  have  no  dis- 
cretionary power  as  to  the  desirability  of  seeking  advice  from  the  councils.  On 
this  point,  see  Morgand,  La  loi  municipale,  I.  465-466. 


52 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


Powers 
that  re- 
quire 
outside 
ratification. 


palities  but  under  state  supervision,  and  some  questions 
pertaining  to  the  system  of  elementary  education.  The 
list  used  to  include,  also,  a  variety  of  matters  connected 
with  the  administration  of  public  worship  ;  but  recent 
national  legislation  has  greatly  diminished  the  share  which 
either  the  higher  or  the  local  civil  authorities  may  assume 
in  the  administration  of  ecclesiastical  affairs.  Besides  be- 
ing obliged  to  consult  the  council  on  all  the  matters  enu- 
merated, the  national  government  may,  at  its  discretion, 
instruct  the  prefects  to  obtain  the  advice  of  the  councils 
upon  any  other  matter  with  respect  to  which  it  deems 
local  counsel  of  value,  —  a  course  which  it  very  frequently 
pursues,  sometimes,  it  may  be,  in  order  to  shirk  its  own 
responsibility. 

A  more  extensive  and  more  important  category  is  that 
which  comprises  the  prerogatives  exercisable  by  the  council 
subject  to  higher  approval.  Thirteen  such  functions  are 
enumerated  in  the  code.1  Of  these  the  most  important 
are  all  powers  connected  with  the  purchase,  alteration, 
mortgaging,  exchanging,  selling,  or  leasing  for  long  terms 
of  any  municipal  property.  Many  of  the  French  cities 
possess  considerable  landed  property,  some  of  which  is  by 
private  use  made  to  yield  a  return  ;  but,  although  this 
property  is  technically  regarded  as  belonging  to  the  com- 
mune and  not  to  the  department  or  the  state,  the  munici- 
pality is  not  permitted  to  deal  with  it  in  entire  freedom.2 

1  La  loi  municipale,  §  68. 

2  Communal  property  in  France  is  usually  divided  into  three  categories : 
(1)  lands  and  buildings  devoted  wholly  to  public  uses, — the  mairie,  for  ex- 
ample ;  (2)  property  rented  to  private  parties  and  hence  yielding  a  revenue  to 
the  commune:  and  (3)  the  so-termed  "commons"  (commMnawx),  or  land  in 
which  the  inhabitants  of  the  commune  have  certain  rights  of  pasturage,  etc.,  — 
a  very  extensive  and  valuable  property  comprising  several  millions  of  acres. 
Strictly  speaking,  the  legal  ownership  of  all  three  classes  of  property  is  vested  in 
the  commune  as  a  corporation  ;  but  in  respect  of  its  possessions  the  commune  is 
by  French  law  regarded  as  a  mineur  en  tutelle,  or  ward,  of  the  national  govern- 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  FRENCH  CITIES  53 

In  this  class  of  provisional  powers  are  also  included  all  The  control 
matters  relating  to  alterations  in  municipal  highways,  to 
the  naming  and  re-naming  of  streets  and  squares,  the  estab- 
lishment and  closing  of  parks,  gardens,  and  other  public 
grounds, — everything,  in  fact,  pertaining  to  the  adminis- 
tration and  use  of  municipal  thoroughfares  for  public  utilities 
whether  by  the  municipality  itself  or  by  private  interests. 
At  this  point  it  may  be  well  to  call  attention  to  a  distinc- 
tion which  the  French  make  between  two  classes  of  streets 
in  the  matter  of  supervision  and  control.  Within  the 
category  of  la  grande  voirie  they  include  the  whole  field  of 
affairs  pertaining  to  the  construction,  repairing,  policing, 
and  general  regulation  of  traffic  upon  all  main  or  major 
highways  of  communication.  Such  highways  are,  in  the 
first  place,  the  routes  nationales,  or  national  roads,  and  in 
the  second  place  the  routes  departementales,  or  provincial 
thoroughfares.  Within  the  category  of  la  petite  voirie,  on 
the  other  hand,  falls  the  administration  of  all  matters 
relating  to  subsidiary  or  minor  highways,  such  roads  in- 
cluding both  chemins  vicinaux  and  chemins  ruraux.  All 
powers  relating  to  la  grande  voirie  are  exercised  by  either 
the  national  or  the  departmental  authorities ;  with  this 
class  of  matters  the  government  of  the  municipalities  has 
nothing  whatever  to  do.  Powers  relating  to  la  petite  voirie, 
however,  are  exercised  by  the  commune  over  such  minor 
roads  as  lie  within  its  limits,  provided  always  that  these 
be  not  sections  or  continuations  of  national  or  departmental 
thoroughfares.  This  control  of  the  town  streets,  squares, 
passages,  and  so  on  is  technically  known  as  la  voirie  urbaine, 
and  all  expenses  connected  with  the  exercise  of  it  are  borne 
in  the  annual  budget  of  the  municipality.  The  higher 

ment,  and  hence  is  restricted  in  the  disposition  of  them.  For  a  further  dis- 
cussion of  this  topic,  see  Imbart  de  La  Tour's  Des  biens  communaux  (Paris, 
1899)  ;  Roger  Griffin's  Les  biens  communaux  en  France  (Paris,  1899)  ;  and  the 
article  in  the  Dictionnaire  municipal  on  "Biens  communaux." 


54  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

authorities  of  course  decide  whether  a  street  shall  be  put 
in  one  or  the  other  of  these  two  classes ;  but  in  general  all 
the  main  streets  of  a  city  are  in  the  first-named  category. 
In  Paris  all  the  streets,  whether  main  or  not,  are  thus 
included.1 

Divided  This  division  of  jurisdiction  over  public  highways  obvi- 

ove'r  streets,  ously  has  a  direct  relation  to  the  whole  question  of  public 
auest!on  of  utilities  in  French  cities  ;  for  the  establishment  and  opera- 
franchises,  tion  of  all  the  great  public  services  involve  the  use  of  the 
streets.  Franchises  including  the  use  of  the  main  streets 
may  be  given  only  by  the  authorities  of  the  department  or 
the  state,  and  the  conditions  under  which  they  are  granted 
are  governed  by  general  laws.  When  the  franchise  is  de- 
signed to  carry  with  it  rights  in  none  but  the  minor  streets 
of  the  municipality,  it  may  be  given  by  the  municipal  coun- 
cil ;  but  before  any  such  grant  assumes  validity  the  ratifica- 
tion of  the  prefect  must  be  secured.2  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
however,  no  public  service  of  any  importance  could  be  effec- 
tive if  restricted  to  the  minor  streets.  The  use  of  both 
classes  of  highways  is  usually  necessary,  and,  in  the  case  of 
some  utilities,  that  of  the  main  streets  is  the  more  desired. 
Since,  then,  the  council  can  give  to  no  private  interests  any 
serviceable  rights  in  the  highways  of  the  municipality,  its 
power  of  granting  franchises  is  not  of  any  substantial  im- 
portance. Indeed,  a  municipality  may  not  itself  presume 
to  use  main  streets  for  municipal  undertakings  without  per- 
mission from  the  higher  authorities.  A  French  city  which 


1  For  a  further  discussion  of  this  topic,  see  H.  Berthe"lemy,  Traite  de  droit 
administratif,  435  ff. ;    L.  Courcelle,  Traite  de   la   voirie  (Paris,  1900)  ;    and 
Dalloz  and  Verge",  Code  des  lois  politiques  et  administratives,  under  "Voirie" 
(III.  1061  ff.). 

2  In  some  cases  this  privilege  rests  with  the  mayor  as  an  incident  of  his 
"  police  power  "  ;  but,  if  the  public  interest  seems  so  to  demand,  the  prefect  may 
grant  privileges  which  the  mayor  refuses  to  allow.     Cf.  La  loi  municipale,  §  98. 
See  also  below,  p.  73. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  FRENCH  CITIES  55 

desires,  for  example,  to  establish  a  system  of  municipally- 
operated  street-railways  must  go  to  the  higher  powers 
for  leave  to  use  even  its  own  principal  streets  for  this 
service.  Such  permits,  if  granted,  are  revocable  by  the 
granting  authorities  at  any  time. 

When  a  private  company  desires  to  establish  or  to  ex-  Tramway 
tend  a  municipal  service  which  it  provides,  —  as,  for  ex- 
ample, a  tramway  service,  —  it  must  file  with  the  officials 
of  the  department  an  application  in  due  form  accompanied 
by  the  requisite  plans.1  When  these  are  at  hand,  the  Procedure 
prefect  fixes  a  convenient  date  upon  which  an  inquest  will  ai 
be  held,  and  names  a  commission  of  seven  or  nine  mem- 
bers drawn  from  the  prominent  business  men  and  property- 
owners  of  the  district  concerned.  After  due  notice  has 
been  given  to  all  those  interested,  the  commission  opens 
its  enquete  by  summoning  those  persons,  whether  officials 
or  private  citizens,  whom  it  thinks  desirable  to  consult. 
These  are  heard,  and  the  gist  of  what  they  have  to  say  is 
framed  into  a  report,  which  is  sent  to  the  prefect.  This 
officer  calls  upon  the  local  chamber  of  commerce  and 
other  representative  bodies  for  their  opinions  upon  the 
application,  and  then  forwards  the  whole  dossier  to  the 
general  council  to  be  used  by  it  in  determining  action  upon 
the  application.  When  the  proposal  involves  the  use  of 
streets  in  more  than  one  department,  hearings  are  held  in 
each  department  concerned,  and  the  reports  are  transmitted 
to  the  minister  of  public  works  at  Paris.  In  such  cases 
the  national  authorities  pass  upon  the  application,  as  they 
do  also  in  any  case  in  which  the  use  of  a  route  nationale  is 
involved.  Those  who  grant  a  franchise  supervise  the  con- 

1  This  regulation  and  those  that  follow  are  prescribed  by  a  decree  of 
May  18,  1881,  which  may  be  found  in  Bulletin  des  lois,  1881,  I.  896-899. 
See  also  Clement  Colson's  Abrege  de  la  legislation  des  chemins  de  fer  et  tram- 
ways (2d  ed.,  Paris,  1904).  Various  details  relating  to  the  subject  are  given 
in  L4on  Thorlet's  Traite  des  travaux  communaux  (Paris,  1894),  810-319. 


56  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

struction  and  operation  of  the  utility.1  When  difficulties 
arise  between  the  city  authorities  and  the  holders  of  the 
franchise,  matters  are  carried  before  the  council  of  the 
prefecture,  which  is  competent  to  adjust  them.2 

Voting  the  Another  function  exercised  by  the  council  under  strict 
supervision  from  the  higher  authorities  is  the  voting  of 
the  municipal  budget.3  This  budget  is,  as  will  be  seen 
later,  prepared  by  the  mayor,  and  is  considered  item  by 
item  at  one  of  the  stated  sessions  of  the  council.  The 
dossier  is  prepared  in  triplicate,  and  when  it  has  passed 

Approval  of  the  council  a  copy  is  sent  to  the  prefect  for  his  approval. 

authorities     If,  however,  the  total  revenue  of  the  municipality  is  esti- 

essentiai.  mated  in  the  budget  at  more  than  three  millions  of  francs, 
another  copy  must  be  forwarded  to  the  minister  of  the 
interior,  for  approval,  on  his  advice,  by  the  president 
of  the  republic.  In  each  case  the  copy  of  the  document 
must  be  accompanied  by  such  data  as  may  be  of  service  to 
the  financial  and  legal  experts  who  at  the  prefecture  or  at 
the  ministry  carefully  scrutinize  the  various  items.  These 
explanatory  data  must  include  a  copy  of  the  council 
minutes,  a  copy  of  the  mayor's  annual  report,  a  copy  of 
the  treasurer's  annual  statement,  and  various  other  papers 
of  a  similar  nature.  All  papers  must,  moreover,  be  pre- 
pared in  an  approved  and  uniform  way  in  order  that  the 
higher  officials  may  do  their  work  with  promptness  and 
accuracy. 

1  Elaborate  regulations  concerning  the  construction  and  operation  of  street 
railways  are  prescribed  in  the  decree  of  August  6,  1881,  printed   in   Bulletin 
des  lois,  1881,  II.  791-812. 

2  On  this  point,  see  the  decision  of  the  Council  of  State  in  the  case  of  the 
Compagnie  des  Tramways  de  Nice,  March  1,  1885. 

8  The  regulations  relating  to  municipal  budgets  are  contained  in  La  lot 
municipale,  §§  132,  145-150.  See  also  A.  G.  Desbats,  Le  budget  municipal 
(Paris,  1895)  ;  A.  Hey,  Theoriedu  budget  communal  (Paris,  1897)  ;  PaulDubois, 
Essai  sur  les  finances  communales  (Paris,  1898)  ;  and  Boucard  and  Jeze,  Ele- 
ments de  la  science  des  finances  et  de  la  legislation  financier e  (2d  ed.,  Paris,  1902). 


57 

The  prefect  (or  the  minister)  has  power  to  increase  or  Powers  of 
to  reduce  any  item  in  that  portion  of  the  budget  which  is 


devoted  to  estimated  receipts,  and  thereby  to  affect  the  eren9e.to 

municipal 

annual  tax-rate  of  the  municipality  ;  1  but  in  the  case  of  budgets. 
items  relating  to  estimated  expenditure  he  is,  except  in 
two  circumstances  which  very  rarely  occur,2  restricted  to  the 
power  of  reduction  alone.8  The  higher  authorities  may 
introduce  no  new  items  into  the  list  of  estimated  expendi- 
tures except  those  which,  though  rendered  obligatory  by 
law,  the  council  has  declined  to  pass.  After  due  examina- 
tion the  budget  is  promulgated  by  an  arrete  of  the  pre- 
fect or,  in  the  case  of  the  largest  cities,  by  a  decree  of  the 
president.  If  necessary,  a  supplementary  budget  may 
be  passed  by  the  council  later  in  the  year  ;  and  this  is 
submitted  to  the  same  procedure  as  the  regular  one.  If 
the  council  should  fail  to  vote  any  budget  at  all,  the  pre- 
fect is  empowered  to  prepare  one  covering  all  the  necessary 
expenses,  and  to  put  this  into  force  by  prefectoral  order. 
In  such  case,  however,  the  number  of  items  may  not  ex- 
ceed the  average  in  the  budgets  of  the  three  preceding 
years.4  In  the  French  municipal  budgets  the  obligatory 
items  form  a  very  considerable  part  of  the  whole,  and 
intervention  on  the  part  of  the  prefects  to  secure  proper 
attention  to  these  has  not  been  at  all  infrequent.  On  the 
whole,  however,  the  municipalities  have  been  dealt  with 
fairly,  and  the  close  scrutiny  which  is  given  to  their 
accounts  and  budgets  at  the  prefecture  or  at  the  ministry 
has  been  wholesome  in  its  results. 


1  See  the  decision  of  the  Council  of  State  in  the  case  of  the  commune  of 
Villeneuve-Saint-Georges,  July  3,  1891,  in  Eevue  generate  d?  administration, 
1891,  III.  296  ff. 

2  These  are  stated  in  La  loi  municipale,  §  145,  par.  2,  and  §  147,  par.  2. 
8  Ibid.  §  148. 

*  Ibid.  §  149.     The  procedure  in  such  cases  is  discussed  in  Morgand's  La  loi 
municipals,  II.  464-481. 


58 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


Municipal 
loans. 


Restrictions 
on  the 
council's 
power  to 
borrow. 


Other 
powers  in 
the  second 
group. 


Closely  related  to  the  council's  power  to  make  the 
annual  appropriations  is  its  right  to  authorize  borrowing 
on  the  credit  of  the  municipality ;  and  this  power  also 
it  exercises  subject  to  strict  supervision  and  control.1 
Within  certain  narrow  limits,  loans  to  be  applied  to  public 
improvements  may  be  authorized  by  the  council  without 
the  approval  of  any  higher  authority  ;  but  when  sums  of 
any  considerable  importance  are  required  the  concurrence 
of  the  prefect  must  be  had,  and  if  the  loan  involves  any 
special-tax  levy  during  a  long  period  the  approval  of  the 
government  at  Paris  must  be  obtained.  Indeed,  special- 
tax  levies  of  all  sorts  (contributions  extraordinaires)  must 
have  the  approval  either  of  the  prefect  or  of  his  supe- 
riors ;  and  changes  in  any  of  the  regular  taxes  must 
be  similarly  approved  before  going  into  effect.  The 
borrowing  power  of  the  municipality  is  thus  very  closely 
circumscribed.  Each  loan  must  be  authorized  on  its 
merits  ;  and  even  after  the  council  has  indorsed  a  proposal  to 
borrow  it  is  required,  in  connection  with  the  application  for 
approval  by  the  higher  authorities,  to  prepare  and  forward  to 
the  prefect  an  elaborate  statement  in  regard  to  the  financial 
condition  of  the  commune,  with  various  other  informa- 
tional documents.2  Apparently,  however,  the  restrictions 
from  above  have  not  prevented  most  of  the  larger  French 
cities  from  becoming  involved  in  heavy  indebtedness. 

Other  functions  exercised  by  the  council  subject  to  the 
approval  of  the  higher  authorities  are  the  establishment 
and  control  of  markets,  and  the  power  to  accept  or  re- 


1  La  loi  municipale,  §§  133,  141-143,  modified  somewhat  by  the  Loi  du  7 
avril  1902  (Bulletin  des  lots,  1902,  I.  2239  ff.).  See  also  the  article  in  the 
Dictionnaire  municipal  on  "Emprunts  communaux."  An  older  work,  which 
has  still  some  value,  is  Romain  Verdalle's  Traite  pratique  des  emprunts  des 
communes  (Paris,  1881). 

a  A  ministerial  circular  of  May  14,  1902,  prescribes  the  list  of  papers  that 
must  be  provided. 


THE   GOVERNMENT  OF  FRENCH  CITIES  59 

ject  contested  gifts  and  legacies.  With  reference  to  such 
gifts  somewhat  extended  regulations  are  imposed  by  the 
municipal  code  ; 1  for  the  practice  of  bequeathing  to  local 
authorities  money  for  public  uses  is  so  common  in  France 
that,  if  discrimination  in  acceptance  were  not  required, 
some  municipalities  might  become  involved  in  expensive 
litigation  with  the  relatives  of  donors  or  testators.  There 
are  several  other  functions  which  the  council  is  permitted 
to  exercise  only  under  close  supervision  ;  but  those  which 
have  been  indicated  comprise  all  that  are  of  importance. 

Action  taken  by  the  council  on  any  of  these  matters  goes  Procedure 
to  the  prefect  for  validation  ;  and  if  the  approval  of  this  conculrlnS 
official  be  not  forthcoming  within  one  month  appeal  may 
be  made  to  the  minister  of  the  interior  for  a  decision.2 
When,  however,  the  prior  assent  of  competent  authorities 
has  been  secured,  or  when  the  council  is  merely  engaged  in 
carrying  into  effect  the  provisions  of  some  mandatory  law 
or  decree,  such  submission  of  its  proposals  to  the  higher 
powers  is  of  course  not  necessary. 

During  the  last  quarter-century  the  general  tendency  in  importance 
France  has  been  in  the  direction  of  strengthening  central 
control  over  local  administration.8  Undoubtedly  this 
supervision  is,  in  practice,  more  extensive  to-day  than  it 
was  when  the  code  was  framed  in  1884,  —  a  result  not  so 
much  of  actual  changes  in  the  law  as  of  the  continued 
extension  of  prefectoral  powers  through  ministerial  orders 
and  decisions  of  the  Council  of  State.4  The  prefect  has, 

1  La  loi  municipale,  §§  111-113,  modified  by  the  Loi  du  4  fevrier  1901 
(Bulletin  des  lois,  1901,  I.  1469  ff.).  See  also  Th.  Ducrocq,  (Jours  de  droit 
administratif  (7th  ed.,  6  vols.,  Paris,  1905),  327-356.  2  La  loi  municipale,  §  69. 

8  A  discussion  of  the  present  scope  of  central  supervision  may  be  found  in  P. 
Lavergne's  paper  on  "  Du  pouvoir  central  et  des  conseils  municipaux,"  in  Revue 
generate  d? administration,  1900. 

4 On  the  recent  growth  of  prefectoral  jurisdiction,  see  H.  Taudiere  on  "Re- 
strictions apportfees  aux  liber te"s  locales  depuis  un  quart  de  siecle,"  in  La  reforme 
sociale,  November,  1904. 


60  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

indeed,  become  the  real  pivot  of  the  French  administrative 
system.  His  part  in  direct  municipal  administration  has 
come  to  be  so  important  that,  only  as  one  regards  him  as  a 
versatile  bureaucrat-politician  and  seeks  his  hand  at  every 
turn,  can  one  get  an  adequate  grasp  of  the  system  of  city 
government.  It  is,  therefore,  not  easy  for  the  American 
student,  whose  political  system  provides  for  no  officer  in 
any  way  corresponding,  to  come  to  a  proper  appreciation 
of  the  dominating  role  which  the  prefect  plays  in  local 
French  politics  and  administration. 

Share  of  the  In  strictly  local  matters  not  comprised  within  the  two 
locaTadmin-  foregoing  categories  the  civic  authorities  have  independent 
istration.  jurisdiction.  Some  few  powers,  notably  the  control  of 
municipal  police,  are  committed  to  the  mayor;1  but  the 
larger  share  in  local  government  is  given  by  the  code  to 
the  council.  Although  this  share  may  not  seem  to  be 
very  extensive,  it  includes  some  important  functions  with 
its  relation  reference  to  the  management  of  various  municipal  services, 
sucn  as  nre  protection,  the  monts-de-piete  (city  loan  offices), 
municipal  cemeteries,  parks,  and  so  on.  When  a  public 
service  like  water,  gas,  or  electricity  has  been  municipal- 
ized, the  powers  of  independent  management  exercised 
by  the  local  authorities  —  partly  by  the  council  and  partly 
by  the  mayor  and  adjoints  —  appear  prominently.2  The 
exact  relation  of  the  council  to  the  municipal  services,  and 
the  precise  division  of  powers  between  the  local  organs, 
are,  however,  matters  upon  which  the  administrative  juris- 
prudence has  grown  so  complex  as  to  render  impossible, 
within  the  limits  of  the  present  volume,  any  attempt  at  a 


1  Cf.  below,  pp.  73-75. 

2  In  matters  relating  to  municipalization  of  services  and  to  the  relation  of  the 
municipality  to  public-utility  corporations,  the  French  have  not  made  use  of  the 
referendum  as  a  restraining  agent ;  but  this  expedient  has  sometimes  been  pro- 
posed.    See  Robert  de  la  Sizeranne's  Le  referendum  communal  (Paris,  1893). 


THE   GOVERNMENT  OF  FRENCH  CITIES  61 

specific  statement.1  In  general,  the  council  defines  the 
main  lines  of  policy,  the  mayor  and  his  subordinates 
assume  the  responsibilities  of  detailed  management. 

Surveying  the  functions  of  the  French  municipal  council  Powers  of 
as  a  whole,  we  find  that  it  takes  a  larger  share  in  direct  pai  councils 
civic  administration  than  do  the  councils  in  German  or  in  France 

and  Eng- 

American  cities.  On  the  other  hand,  its  role  is  quite  in-  land, 
ferior  to  that  of  the  borough  council  in  England,  partly  be- 
cause the  principle  of  division  of  powers  between  local 
organs,  entirely  unknown  in  England,  receives  recognition 
in  the  French  republic  to  some  extent,  but  chiefly  because 
in  France  the  hand  of  state  is  heavier  upon  the  local  coun- 
cils than  it  is  in  England.  At  the  same  time,  the  French  in  France 
councils  have  not,  like  the  common  councils  of  many  j^ 
American  cities,  become  mere  organs  for  the  granting  of 
funds;  they  exercise  in  many  branches  of  local  adminis- 
trative life  an  influence  which,  if  not  always  controlling,  is 
usually  very  substantial.  This  influence  has  certainly  not 
increased  since  1884.  On  the  contrary,  although  the  French 
council  has  not  meantime  been  so  ruthlessly  shorn  of  its  pre- 
rogatives as  has  its  prototype  in  American  municipalities, 
its  power  has  undergone  some  diminution;  and  contempo- 
rary indications  seem  to  point  to  further  decline  rather  than 
to  any  increase  in  its  control  over  local  administration.2 

1  On  the  general  relation  of  the  French  municipality  to  its  public  services, 
those  sufficiently  interested  may  be  referred  to  Leon  Thorlet's  Traite  des  tra- 
vaux  communaux  (Paris,  1894)  ;  Eustache  Pilon's  Monopoles  communaux (Paris, 
1899)  ;  Louis  Roger's  Le  domains  industriel  des  municipalites  (Paris,  1901)  ; 
L.  Stehlin's  Essais  de  socialisme  municipal   (Paris,  1901) ;  A.  Sausson's  Des 
monopoles  communaux  (Paris,  1902)  ;  Pierre  Mercier's  Les  exploitations  munici- 
pales,  commerciales,  et  industrielles  en  France  (Paris,  1905);  and  Maurice  Gau- 
cheron's  tftudes  sur  Vceuvre  economique  des  municipalites  (Paris,  1906).    The 
relation  of  private  interests  to  the  exercise  of  the  council's  powers  is  discussed 
in  Lucien  Dalem's  Des  voies  de  recours  contre  les  deliberations  des  conseils  mu- 
nicipaux  (Paris,  1904). 

2  Of.  Albert  Shaw,  Municipal   Government  in   Continental  Europe  (New 
York,  1897),  175-176. 


62  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

Thecoun-  Much  of  the  council's  work  is  handled  by  the  various 
mutees™'  standing  or  special  committees  which  it  selects  from 
among  its  own  members.  Ordinarily  there  is  a  standing 
committee  for  each  important  municipal  department ; 
but  these  committees,  it  should  be  clearly  understood, 
merely  consider  questions  relating  to  the  departments 
without  actively  participating  in  the  government  of  them. 
Actual  administration  is  the  prerogative  of  the  mayor  and 
his  assistants ;  the  committees  are  only  advisory  in  their 
functions,  and  may  not  exercise  even  this  privilege  except 
through  reports  made  to  the  council  and  tendered  by  that 
body  to  the  real  administrative  authority.  Hence  the 
council  committees  play  a  much  less  important  part  in 
French  cities  than  they  do  in  the  English  or  German. 
Not  that  the  deliberations  of  the  French  committees  are 
entirely  without  influence ;  on  the  contrary,  the  adjoint  in 
charge  of  a  department  usually  gives  great  weight  to 
any  representations  which  the  appropriate  committee  may 
make.  Unlike  the  English  committee  or  the  Prussian 
deputation,  however,  the  French  committee  does  not  pos- 
sess any  power  to  order,  direct,  or  control. 

The  mayor  Having  outlined  the  composition  and  powers  of  the 
of  the  com-8  council>  one  may  turn  to  a  consideration  of  the  executive 
mune.  organ,  which  in  all  the  French  communes,  large  or  small, 

consists  of  a  mayor  and  one  or  more  ad  joints  or  assistants. 
Number  of  The  number  of  these  adjoints  varies  with  the  size  of  the 
municipality,  a  city  with  2500  inhabitants  or  fewer  having 
but  one,  and  a  city  with  a  population  ranging  between 
2500  and  10,000  having  only  two.  In  the  larger  munici- 
palities there  is  an  additional  adjoint  for  every  additional 
25,000  people ;  but  the  total  number  must  not  exceed 
twelve,  except  in  the  city  of  Lyons,  where  it  is  fixed  at 
seventeen.  Both  mayor  and  adjoints  are  elected  by  the 
council  for  a  term  of  four  years,  —  that  is,  for  the  lifetime 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  FRENCH  CITIES  63 

of  the  council  itself.  All  ad  joints  go  out  of  office  together  • 
there  is  no  system  of  partial  renewal  at  stated  periods. 
The  election  takes  place  at  the  first  meeting  of  the  new  Methods  of 
council  following  the  general  polling  in  May,  provided  that  e  lon* 
in  the  interval  the  necessary  supplementary  elections  have 
been  held.  It  may  not  proceed,  however,  if  one-fourth  or 
more  of  the  seats  at  the  council-board  remain  unfilled. 
The  sitting  at  which  the  choice  is  made  is  presided  over 
by  the  senior  councillor  in  attendance;  the  selection  takes 
place  without  any  formal  nominations  and  by  secret  ballot 
(scrutin  secret}}-  On  either  of  the  first  two  ballots  an  abso- 
lute majority  is  necessary  for  election ;  after  this  a  plu- 
rality suffices.  In  the  event  of  a  tie  the  elder  of  two 
opposing  candidates  is  declared  chosen. 

The  mayor  and  ad  joints  must  be  selected  from  within  Eligibility 
the  membership  of  the  council ; 2  but  there  are  no  special  offices?11 
disqualifications  other  than  the  proviso  that  financial 
officers  in  the  employ  of  the  central  government  who  are 
eligible  to  membership  in  the  council  shall  not  be  chosen 
as  executive  officials  of  the  municipality.  There  are  no 
requirements  as  to  previous  municipal  service ;  indeed,  a 
councillor  may  be  chosen  mayor  of  the  commune  imme- 
diately after  his  first  election  to  the  council,  and  this  not 
infrequently  happens.  The  adjoints  are  commonly  men 
who  have  served  one  or  more  terms  at  the  council-board; 
but  the  selection  of  those  who  have  had  no  prior  municipal 
service  is  not,  especially  in  the  larger  cities,  regarded  as 
anything  unusual.  Reelections  to  both  the  mayoralty  and  Rejections 
the  adjointships  are  of  frequent  occurrence,  particularly 
in  the  smaller  communes,  where  one  often  finds  mayors 
who  have  been  in  office  continuously  for  twelve  or  even 

1  The  exact  procedure  to  be  followed  is  set  forth  at  length  in  Saint-Lager's 
Elections  municipales,  383-426. 

2  La  lot  municipals,  §  73. 


are  com- 
mon. 


64  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

for  sixteen  years.     Occasionally  a  local  magnate  holds  the 
office  during  his  lifetime  and  passes  it  on  to  his  son  after 
him;  but  such  instances  are  of  course  very  rare.     In  the 
larger  towns  and  cities  a  mayor  is  frequently  chosen  for  a 
second  term,  but  third  terms  are  probably  not  more  com- 
mon than  in  the  cities  of  the  United  States.     One  who  has 
served  his  term  as  adjoint  satisfactorily  may  reasonably 
look  for  reelection  unless  there  has  been  a  decided  change 
in  the  party  complexion  of  the  council ;  and  even  in  this 
case   an   adjoint  whose  administration  has  been  notably 
successful  has  sometimes  been  chosen  to  succeed  himself. 
Party  poll-        In  electing  a  mayor  and  adjoints  the  municipal  council 
oraity  ™iec-  divides  along  partisan  lines,  which  may  be  widely  diver- 
tions.  gent .  for?  wnen  its  members  have  been  chosen  from  dif- 

ferent electoral  districts  or  wards,  several  partisan  factions 
are  likely  to  be  represented  in  it.  In  such  cases  the 
dominant  faction  may  manage  to  secure  the  election  of  its 
candidates  by  a  plurality  on  the  third  ballot ;  or  the  selec- 
tion may  be  the  result  of  "deals"  or  coalitions  between 
two  or  more  of  the  groups.  When,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
councillors  have  been  elected  au  scrutin  de  liste,  or  by 
general  ticket,  the  whole  body  is  likely  to  represent  a 
single  political  faction.  In  this  case  there  is  usually  little 
or  no  open  contest  for  the  offices,  the  whole  matter  being 
arranged  by  the  leaders  beforehand,  sometimes  even  before 
weakness  of  the  date  of  the  council  elections.1  Complaint  is  frequently 
made  that  the  mayor  and  adjoints  of  the  French  city  do 
not  always  represent  the  voters,  and  that  direct  election  by 
the  latter  would  result  in  the  choice  of  a  different  set  of  men. 
Character  of  Nevertheless,  the  class  of  men  selected  both  as  mayors 
ien'  and  as  adjoints  in  the  larger  municipalities  has  been  of 
a  satisfactorily  high  order  ;  for,  despite  the  influence  of 

1  On  this  point  see  Leonard  Leonard's  Selection  du  maire  de  la  commune 
par  le  nouveau  conseil  municipal  (farce  electorate*),  Paris,  1902. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  FRENCH  CITIES  65 

partisanship,  the  councillors  recognize  the  desirability  of 
having  experienced  men  in  the  administrative  posts. 

The  results  of  the  election  must  be  posted  at  the  mairie 
within  twenty-four  hours,  and  must  within  the  same  period 
be  duly  communicated  to  the  prefect  or  the  subprefect,  as 
the  case  may  be.  No  approval  on  the  part  of  these  officials 
is  necessary  to  the  validity  of  the  choice,  and  no  right  of 
withholding  ratification  exists ;  but  if  the  council  has  pro- 
ceeded with  the  election  in  any  irregular  fashion,  or  if  it  Contested 
has  selected  any  councillor  who  is  not  legally  competent 
for  the  post,  a  formal  protest  may  be  lodged  with  the  pre- 
fect by  any  voter.  Such  protests  are  considered  by  the 
council  of  the  prefecture,  which  acts  as  an  administrative 
court  with  original  jurisdiction  in  all  matters  affecting 
municipal  elections  and  the  qualifications  of  municipal 
officers  ;  and  in  every  case  appeal  may  be  taken  to  the 
highest  administrative  court,  the  Council  of  State.1 

Mayors  and  ad  joints,  like  councillors,  give  their  services  Mayors  and 
without  remuneration  ;  in  fact,  the  principle  of  gratuitous  servegratui- 
service  on  the  part  of  all  elective  municipal  officers  has  tously- 
been  strongly  anchored  in  the  minds  of  the  French  people 
ever  since  the  Revolution.     Adjoints  receive  neither  sala- 
ries nor  allowances  for  expenses  ;  but  the  mayor,  though  he 
has  no  stipend,  may  accept  from  the  council  such  sum  as  Allowances 
it  deems  a  reasonable  compensation  for  expenses  actually 
incurred  by  him  in  the  direct  discharge  of  his  office.     In 
a  large   city,  where   the   chief   executive   is   often   called 
upon  to  uphold  the  dignity  of   the  municipality    on    the 
occasion  of  fetes  and  public  ceremonies,  as  well  as  in  enter- 
taining distinguished  visitors,  the  mayor's  personal  disburse- 
ments are  frequently  very  heavy.     The  council  is  not,  how- 

1  La  loi  municipale,  §  79.  A  large  number  of  important  decisions  resulting 
from  these  protests  are  summarized  in  Saint-Lager's  Elections  municipales,  414- 
420. 


66  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

ever,  permitted  to  afford  him  a  virtual  salary  under  the 
guise  of  an  allowance  for  expenditures  of  this  nature ;  for 
the  sum  allotted  must  be  put  into  the  annual  budget,  and 
this  budget,  as  has  already  been  seen,  comes  under  the  scru- 
tinizing eye  of  the  prefect,  who  takes  care  that  there  is  no 
violation  of  the  spirit  of  the  law.1  The  mayor's  allowance, 
though  scarcely  ever  adequate,  is  sometimes  substantial; 
indeed,  were  it  not  for  this  fact  it  would  be  next  to 
impossible  for  any  citizen,  not  possessed  of  private  means, 
to  accept  the  office  of  mayor  in  the  larger  cities  with  any 
hope  of  performing  properly  the  social  duties  which  the 
tenure  of  the  post  entails. 

When  the  council  elects  a  mayor  and  ad  joints  from 
among  its  own  members  it  thereby  creates  no  vacancies  in 
the  body,  as  the  English  council  does  when  it  chooses  cer- 
tain of  its  members  to  the  mayoralty  and  aldermanships. 
The  French  mayors  and  adjoints  continue  in  their  seats  at 
the  council-board;  hence  no  by-elections  become  necessary, 
as  they  do  in  England  under  similar  circumstances. 
Powers  of  The  powers  of  the  mayor  and  adjoints  cannot  easily  be 
set  forth  in  general  terms  ;  for,  although  by  the  provisions 
of  the  law  they  are  substantially  alike  in  all  of  the  36,000 
communes,  the  enormous  difference  in  local  conditions 
makes  the  actual  exercise  of  them  vastly  different  in 
a  large  city  like  Marseilles  or  Bordeaux  from  that  in 
a  rural  hamlet  of  a  few  hundred  inhabitants.  Much  de- 
pends, furthermore,  on  the  character  and  abilities  of  the 
persons  who  for  the  time  being  happen  to  hold  the  respec- 
tive posts,  —  a  feature  particularly  worth  emphasis  in  any 


1  In  a  decision  rendered  on  April  30,  1896,  the  Council  of  State  denied  the 
claim  of  the  prefects  to  require  from  the  mayors  any  detailed  statements  of  their 
expenses,  but  upheld  their  right  to  assure  themselves  in  each  case  that  the 
allotted  sum  constituted  a  reimbursement  and  not  a  remuneration.  See  Revue 
generate  d' 'administration,  1898,  III.  34. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  FRENCH  CITIES  67 

attempt  to  explain  the  actual  exercise  of  the  mayor's  pre- 
rogatives. A  mayor  who  desires  to  leave  almost  every- 
thing to  his  ad  joints  and  the  permanent  heads  of  the  civic  Elasticity 
departments  may  easily  do  so,  thereby  becoming  as  little  ^en? 
influential  in  the  guidance  of  municipal  policy  as  is  the 
mayor  of  an  English  borough.  On  the  other  hand,  a  man 
of  the  requisite  individuality  and  energy,  like  M.  Auga- 
gneur,  the  former  mayor  of  Lyons,  may  make  of  the  office 
almost  a  municipal  dictatorship,  and  may  even  match  the 
executive  head  of  New  York  City  in  the  scope  and  impor- 
tance of  the  powers  which  he  exercises  directly.  Usually, 
of  course,  the  French  mayor  represents  neither  extreme. 
The  more  vital  of  his  powers  he  commonly  exercises  him- 
self ;  the  less  important  he  delegates  to  his  adjoints,  who 
enjoy  a  generous  degree  of  freedom,  sometimes  being  per- 
mitted to  use  their  discretionary  privileges  in  a  manner  of 
which  the  mayor  may  not  personally  approve. 

The  mayor  of  the  French  municipality,  as  has  often  been  Duaiposi- 
pointed  out,  occupies  a  dual  position,  —  a  fact  that  must  French*1"3 
be  kept  constantly  in  mind  if  any  proper  grasp  of  his  place  maTor- 
and  powers  is  to  be  had.     On  the  one  hand  he  is  the  ad- 
ministrative head  of  his  commune,  the  apex  of  the  local 
framework  of  government,  selected  by  the  elective  organ 
of  the  municipality  and  responsible  to  it  for  his  acts.     In  Executive 
this  capacity  he  presides  at  all  meetings  of  the  communal 


council,  makes  an  elaborate  annual  report  to  that  body,  mune- 
and  represents  the  municipality  in  all  legal  proceedings,  as 
well  as  upon  all  ceremonial  occasions.1     As  the  administra-  His  appoint- 
tive  head  of  the  city  he  also  makes  practically  all  appoint-  mgpt 
ments  of  municipal  officials  from  highest  to  lowest,  with 

1  The  best  convenient  source  for  any  special  study  of  the  French  mayor's 
powers  is  G.  Franceschi's  Manuel  des  maires  (2  vols.,  Paris,  1903).  A  less 
elaborate  but  a  useful  work  is  Durand  de  Nancy's  Nouveau  guide  pratique  des 
maires,  des  adjoints,  des  secretaires  de  maires,  et  des  conseillers  municipaux 
(Paris,  1905). 


68  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

the  exception  of  one  or  two  important  offices,  —  such  as 
that  of  treasurer  (receveur  municipal"),  —  which  are  filled 
either  by  the  prefect  or  by  the  president  of  the  republic.1 
No  confirmation  of  the  mayor's  appointments  is  necessary 
at  the  hands  of  the  council ;  but  in  the  case  of  police  offi- 
cials, as  will  be  seen  later,  the  approval  of  the  prefect  is 
required.2  One  may  say,  in  fact,  that  for  almost  every 
important  civic  appointment  the  mayor  is  directly  and 
entirely  responsible.  In  the  larger  cities  this  power  puts 
in  his  hands  a  considerable  patronage,  particularly  since 
there  are  no  important  limitations  upon  his  freedom  to 
choose  appointees ;  for  the  cities  of  France  have  no 
system  of  competitive  civil-service  examinations  as  Ameri- 
cans understand  them,  and  only  for  the  more  technical  posts 
is  any  specific  qualification  demanded  by  law.3  On  the 
other  hand,  since  removals  are  rarely  made  to  serve 
partisan  exigencies,  the  mayor  usually  finds,  during  his 
term,  very  few  gaps  to  be  filled  ;  it  is  his  practice,  more- 
over, to  leave  to  the  ad  joints  and  the  permanent  heads 
of  the  various  civic  departments  a  generous  degree  of 
liberty  in  nominating  persons  to  fill  vacancies  on  their 
respective  staffs. 

Suspension  To  the  mayor  is  also  given  the  power  of  suspending  or 
sal  of  nm-18~  dismissing  any  municipal  officer,  a  privilege  which  he  may 
nicipai  offi-  exercise  without  the  concurrence  of  the  council  or  the 

cers. 

approval  of  any  higher  authority.  This  power  of  removal 
does  not,  of  course,  extend  to  the  police  officials,  who  may 
not  in  any  case  be  interfered  with  except  with  the  prefect's 

1  The  choice  is  made  from  a  list  of  three  persons  presented  by  the  municipal 
council.    When  the  annual  municipal  revenue  is  less  than  300,000  francs  the 
appointment  is  made  by  the  prefect,  and  not-  by  the  president  (La  loi  munici- 
pale,  §  156) .    If  the  revenue  of  the  municipality  is  less  than  60,000  francs  the  col- 
lector of  taxes  (percepteur)  performs  the  functions  of  the  treasurer.     See  Loi 
du  ZSfevrier  1901,  §  60,  in  Bulletin  des  lots,  1901,  I.  2013-2038. 

2  Below,  p.  74.  »  qy.  below,  pp.  89  ff. 


THE   GOVERNMENT  OF  FRENCH  CITIES  69 

consent.     It   is  worth   noting,   moreover,  that,  when  the  Restrictions 
mayor  has  the  power  of  suspension  or  dismissal,  his  action  °n^ejof 
is  not  subject  to  review  by  any  civil  court  ;   nor  may  any  dismissal. 
compensation  be  awarded  by  such  a  court  to  a  deposed 
official  even  when  the  action  of  the  mayor  can  be  shown 
to  have  been  arbitrary  or  without  good  cause.     The  only 
authority  that  has  power  to  review  a  mayor's  action  in  this 
matter  is  the  highest  administrative  court  of  the  republic,  jurisdiction 
the  Council  of  State.1     This  body  may,  if  it  so  determines,  ministrative 
annul  the  order  by  which  an  officer  was  removed,  or  it  courte- 
may  award  him  damages  to  be  paid  out  of  the  treasury  of 
the  municipality  ;  but  the  cases  in  which  such  action  has 
been  taken  are  not  numerous.     This  well-established  legal 
doctrine   in   France   relieves    the    mayors    of   what    often 
becomes  a  gross   evil   in    American   cities,  —  namely,  the 
reinstatement   in   office,  by   the  ordinary  civil   courts,  of 
officials  who  have  been  suspended  or  dismissed  by  the  chief 
executive  of  the  city.     In  most  American  states  the  statutes  French  and 
make  provision  that  the  mayor  may  remove  from  municipal 


office  only  for  cause,    and  that    the    courts    shall    decide  affording  re- 

dress for 
whether  the  cause  assigned  is  or  is  not  sufficiently  good,  wrongful 

In  New  York,  for  instance,  it  has  been  held  that  in  order 
to  justify  removal  there  must  be  some  clear  incapacity  or 
dereliction  of  duty  ;  that,  in  the  absence  of  such  definite 
grounds,  a  mayor  may  not  remove  an  official  for  the  good 
of  the  service  and  in  order  to  install  an  officer  admittedly 
more  competent  and  more  adequately  qualified  for  the 
duties  of  the  post.2  Not  that  the  aggrieved  official  is  in 

1  The  law  and  practice  relating  to  the  appointment,  suspension,  and  removal 
of  French  officials,  national,  departmental,   and  municipal,    are  discussed  at 
length  in  L.  F.  Me'te'rie'-Larrey's  Les  emplois  publics  (Paris,  1883)  ;  Andre*  De- 
lest's  Nomination  et  revocation  des  fonctionnaires  (Paris,  1899)  ;  J.  Drouille's 
Le  pouvoir  disciplinaire  sur  les  fonctionnaires  publics  (Toulouse,  1900)  ;  and  E. 
G.  Perrier's  De  la  revocation  des  fonctionnaires  (Paris,  1903). 

2  People  vs.  Fire  Commissioners,  73  Neio  York  Seports,  437. 


70  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

France  deprived  of  all  redress ;  on  the  contrary,  he  some- 
times obtains  from  the  Council  of  State  monetary  com- 
pensation which  would  in  all  probability  never  be  awarded 
by  any  court  in  the  United  States.  In  order  to  obtain 
this  redress,  however,  he  must  show  adequate  basis  for  his 
claim  before  a  tribunal  which  views  the  matter  in  its 
relation  to  the  good  of  the  service  rather  than  from  the 
viewpoint  of  a  protector  of  private  rights.1 
Financial  As  administrative  head  of  the  municipality,  the  mayor, 

under  the  control  of  the  council,  has  general  charge  of  the 
financial  affairs  of  the  commune.2  It  is  his  duty  to  see 
that  the  revenues  of  the  municipality,  both  ordinary  and 
extraordinary,  are  properly  collected  and  conserved,  and  to 
make  a  report  to  the  council  on  the  matter  before  that 
body  proceeds  to  a  consideration  of  the  annual  budget. 
His  report  is,  in  fact,  a  general  summary  of  the  financial 
condition  of  the  commune,  showing  receipts,  expenditures, 
loans,  indebtedness,  and  so  on  ;  and  it  must  tally  with  the 
independent  report  on  the  same  field  presented  by  the 
municipal  treasurer,  who,  it  will  be  remembered,  is  not 
appointed  by  the  mayor.  A  copy  of  both  reports  goes 
either  to  the  ministry  of  the  interior  or  to  the  prefect,  for 
scrutiny  by  the  council  of  the  prefecture  or  by  the  GOUT  des 
Comptes,  according  to  the  size  of  the  annual  expenditure. 
These  scrutinizing  authorities  give  special  attention  to  such 
items  as  uncollectible  taxes,  miscellaneous  expenses,  and 
other  like  incidents  of  local  finance  in  which  supervision 
from  a  higher  power  is  always  wholesome.  While  the 
financial  statement  is  being  considered  by  the  council,  the 
mayor  does  not  preside  ;  a  chairman  pro  tern  pore  is  chosen 

1  An  interesting  discussion  of  this  whole  matter  may  be  found  in  the  decision 
of  the  Council  of  State  in  the  case  of  M.  Cadot,  municipal  engineer  of  Marseilles, 
printed  in  Revue  generate  &  administration,  1890,  I.  451  ff. 

2  La  loi  municipale,  §§  52,  71,  161.     See  also  Paul  Dubois's  Essai  sur  les 
finances  communales  (Paris,  1898). 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  FRENCH  CITIES  71 

by  the  councillors,  and  the  mayor  retires  until  the  question 
of  adopting  the  report  has  been  voted  upon. 

After  this  report  has  been  accepted  the  council    is  at  Preparation 
liberty,  at  its  May  session,  to  proceed  to  a  consideration  of  nuafbudget 
the  budget  for  the  ensuing  fiscal  year.    This  budget  is  drawn 
up  by  the  mayor,  who,  though  he  is  assisted  in  his  work  of 
compilation  by  the  adjoints  and  the  heads  of  departments, 
bears  the  sole  responsibility  of  securing  the  acceptance  of 
the  various  items  by  the  council.     The  document  is  divided  structure  of 
into  two  sections,  one  comprising  estimated  receipts  and 
the    other    estimated    expenditures.     The  section  dealing 
with  receipts  is  also  usually  subdivided  into  two  parts,  one 
including  ordinary  and  the  other  extraordinary  revenues.1 
The  section  dealing  with  expenditures  is,  in  the  case  of  the 
larger   municipalities,  parcelled    into  several  subdivisions 
comprising  such  heads  as  "  general  expenses  of  administra- 
tion,"   "maintenance    of    municipal  property,"  "pensions 
and  charity,"    "  police,"    "  fire    protection,"    "  education," 
and  so  on.     With  respect  to  some  of  the  items  included 
the  mayor  has  a  discretionary  power;    but  most  of  them 
represent  expenditures  that  are  rendered  obligatory  by  law. 
The  municipal  code  enumerates  not  fewer  than  twenty  ap-  items  in  the 
propriations  which  the  budget  must  make  in  sums  deemed  quired  by" 
adequate  by  the   higher   authorities.2     This   list   includes  law- 
such  items  as  the  maintenance  of  municipal  property,  the 
preservation    of   municipal    archives,   the    salaries   of    the 
municipal  treasurer  and  some  other  officers,  the  pay  and 
equipment   of   the  police    establishment,    the  pensions  of 
local  officials,   education,  the  preparation  of  voters'  lists, 

1  The  lines  of  demarcation  between  ordinary  and  extraordinary  revenues  are 
fixed  in  La  lot  municipale,  §§  132-134.    Extraordinary  expenditures  are  those  of 
an  accidental  or  temporary  character,  which  do  not  occur  annually ;  ordinary 
expenditures  are  those  which  come  in  the  budget  year  after  year.     See  La  loi 
municipale,  §  135 ;  also  above,  pp.  66-67. 

2  La  loi  municipale,  §  136. 


72  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

the  repair  of  local  highways,  the  remuneration  of  all 
local  officers  in  posts  created  by  the  state,  and  various 
other  expenditures.  In  fact,  a  very  large  part  of  the 
budget  is  made  up  of  these  obligatory  items,  which 
greatly  restrict  the  discretionary  powers  of  the  mayor.1 
These  items  must  all  be  put  into  the  budget  and  must 
be  passed  ;  otherwise  they  will  be  inserted  by  the  pre- 
fect, and,  if  necessary,  the  mayor  or  the  councillors  or 
both  may  be  suspended  from  office  for  their  recalcitrancy.2 
Such  drastic  action  has,  however,  never  yet  been  neces- 
sary. At  the  May  session  of  the  council  the  energies  of 
the  mayor  are  devoted  very  largely  to  getting  through  the 
council  those  items  with  regard  to  which  he  has  discretion. 
Powers  of  Again,  the  mayor,  as  head  of  the  commune,  exercises 
supervisory  jurisdiction  over  the  management  of  communal 


*°  ™u°^lpal  property,  which  in  some  French  cities  is  of  large  and  grow- 
ing value.3  All  matters  of  general  policy  relating  to  such 
property  are,  however,  determined  by  the  council,  subject 
to  the  approval  of  the  prefect.  The  mayor  is  also  charged 
with  many  functions  relating  to  the  carrying  out  of  the 
various  conditions  which  may  have  been  imposed  upon  the 
municipal  authorities  through  their  acceptance  of  gifts  or 
legacies.4  In  the  actual  oversight  of  sundry  municipal 
works  of  construction,  too,  he  finds  many  duties  laid 
upon  him.  He  selects  the  engineers  or  architects  who 
make  the  plans;  he  appoints  the  supervisors  who  secure 
conformity  to  these  plans  in  construction  ;  and  he  is 
responsible  that  the  authorized  expenditure  for  the  under- 

1  This  point  is  very  clearly  brought  out  in  Professor  J.  A.  Fairlie's  paper 
on  "Municipal  Accounts  and  Statistics  in  Continental  Europe,"  printed  in 
National  Municipal  League,  Proceedings,  1901,  pp.  282-301. 

2  See  above,  pp.  56-57;  and  below,  p.  83. 

•  This  branch  of  municipal  administration  is  dealt  with  at  length  in  Edmond 
Cle*ray's  De  la  mise  en  valeur  des  biens  communaux  (Paris,  1900). 

*  See  above,  pp.  58-59. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  FRENCH  CITIES  73 

taking  shall  not  be  exceeded.1  Not  a  single  franc  may  be 
paid  out  of  the  municipal  exchequer  without  his  warrant 
(mandat),  save  when  he  refuses  to  order  the  payment  of 
an  obligatory  expense.  In  such  cases  the  municipal 
treasurer  may  be  commanded  by  prefectoral  decree  to 
make  the  payment.2 

To  the  mayor  is  further  committed  the  supervision  Powers  of 
of  all  matters  relating  to  minor  streets  and  passages.  It 
is  his  duty  to  supervise  the  construction  and  the  repair 
of  these,  to  see  that  private  abutters  do  not  encroach  upon 
them,  to  make  rules  for  the  regulation  of  traffic  along  them, 
and  in  general  to  see  that  they  are  kept  reasonably  safe 
and  convenient.  Over  all  highways  within  the  munici- 
pality, whether  main  or  minor,  the  mayor  has  police  power 
in  his  capacity  as  chief  police  authority  of  the  commune. 

One    of    the  most  important  powers   possessed  by  the  The  mayor's 
mayor  as  chief  executive  officer  of  the  municipality  is  that  era." 
of  organizing  and  controlling  the  system  of  municipal  police. 
Throughout  France,  with  only  three  exceptions,  the  organi- 
zation of  city  police  is  vested,  in  the  first  instance,  with  the 
mayor  of   the  commune;3  but  it  cannot  be  too  strongly 
emphasized   that   this  police  jurisdiction  is  exercised    by 
him  subject  to  the  strict  supervision  of  the  prefect  of  his 

1  The  exact  powers  and  duties  of  the  mayor  in  connection  with  the  construc- 
tion and  repair  of  municipal  works  have  been  denned  in  a  large  number  of  deci- 
sions rendered  by  the  administrative  courts  in  cases  brought  before  them  from 
time  to  time.    The  gist  of  these  decisions  may  be  found  in  L6on  Thorlet's  Traite 
des  travaux  communaux  (Paris,  1894).     Reference  may  also  be  made  to  J. 
Lefournier's  article  on  "Les  battues  communales,"  in  Revue  generate  ^admin- 
istration, 1888. 

2  La  loi  municipale,  §  152. 

8  The  three  exceptions  are  Paris,  Lyons,  and  Marseilles.  In  the  first,  city 
police  control  is  vested  in  the  hands  of  a  special  national  officer  called  the  prefect 
of  police  (see  below,  pp.  100-102) ;  in  the  second  it  is  given  to  the  regular  prefect 
of  the  department  of  the  Rhdne  (La  loi  municipale,  §  104) ;  in  the  third  it  has 
recently  been  committed  to  the  prefect  of  the  department  of  Bouches-du-Rhdne 
(.Loi  du  8  mars  1908). 


74  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

department.1  The  situation  is  the  more  incongruous  in 
view  of  the  fact  that  French  municipalities  are  by  law 
rendered  pecuniarily  liable  to  make  good  any  serious 
damage  to  private  property  which  may  result  from  the 
inability  of  their  police  systems  to  cope  with  riots  and 
other  violent  breaches  of  the  peace.2  The  commissaires 
de  police,  or  professional  heads  of  the  municipal  police 
organizations,  are  always  appointed  by  decree  of  the  presi- 
dent of  the  republic,  the  gendarmes  by  the  minister  of  war 
Scope  of  at  the  request  of  the  mayors.  The  mayor  himself  appoints 
it^  '  "  all  other  police  officials,  such  as  clerks,  inspectors,  agents  de 
police,  sergents  de  ville,  and  in  the  rural  communes  gardes 
champ&res;  but  all  his  appointments  to  the  higher  posts 
must  have  the  concurrence  of  the  prefect  or  the  subprefect. 
Subject  to  prefectoral  approval  he  likewise  regulates  the 
rates  of  pay,  the  duties,  and  the  system  of  discipline,  besides 
authorizing  promotions  and  making  suspensions  or  dismis- 
sals when  such  seem  desirable.  In  municipalities  that  have 
populations  not  exceeding  40,000,  the  mayor  is  allowed  to 
exercise  a  fairly  free  hand  in  the  organization  and  control 

Differences 

in  police  ad-  of  the  force,  with  the  result  that  there  is,  in  the  less  popu- 


l°us  communes,  a  considerable  divergence  from  uniformity. 
larger  and      jn  cjties  of  over  40,000,  on  the  other  hand,  the  mayor's 

smaller  com- 

munes.         discretionary  powers  are  very  much  narrowed  ;  for  in  these 


1  A  quarter-century  or  more  ago  there  was  some  controversy  among  authori- 
ties upon  French  administration  as  to  whether  the  mayor  exercised  his  police 
powers  as  a  communal  or  as  a  national  officer  ;  but  it  is  now  more  or  less 
generally  agreed  that  it  is  as  administrative  head  of  the  municipality  and  not  as 
local  agent  of  the  central  authorities  that  he  exerts  his  control  over  local  police 
affairs. 

2  For  further  discussions  of  this  liability,  see  Andre*  Spire's  Etude  historique 
et  juridique  de  la  responsabilite  des  communes  en  cas  d1  '  attroupements  (Paris, 
1895)  ;  Jean  Perrinjaquet's  De  la  responsabilite  des  communes  en  matiere  de 
police  (Paris,  1905)  ;  Maurice  Vel-Durand's  De  la  responsabilite  des  communes 
en  cas  de  dommagespar  des  attroupements  ou  rassemblements  (Paris,  1902)  ;  and 
M.  Michoud's  paper  on  "La  responsabilite  des  communes,"  in  Bevue  du  droit 
public,  1897,  1.  47  ff. 


THE   GOVERNMENT  OF  FRENCH  CITIES  75 

cases  the  general  lines  of  organization  and  administration 
in  regard  to  the  municipal  police  are  prescribed  by  presi- 
dential decree.  There  are  at  present  forty-five  cities  whose 
populations  exceed  this  prescribed  limit,  and  for  each  of 
these  a  special  decree  has  been  issued  by  the  president,  all 
of  them  following  similar  general  lines  but  in  matters  of 
detail  showing  some  important  differences.  Even  within 
the  limits  marked  off  by  the  decrees,  however,  the  police 
jurisdiction  of  the  mayor  in  a  large  French  city  is  far  from 
being  that  of  a  mere  figurehead.1 

The  police  powers  of  the  mayor  are   not    confined    to  Police  ordi- 
matters  of  organization  and  discipline.     Even  more  impor- 
tant than  his  authority  in  this  field  is  his  power  to  issue 
police  ordinances  or  arretes  designed  to  regulate  an  extensive 
category  of  matters,  many  of  which  would  not,  in  Ameri- 
can cities,  be  left  to  the  discretion  of  any  administrative 
official.     In  these  municipal  police  ordinances,  for  instance,  Nature  and 
are  drawn  up  and  enunciated  all  regulations  necessary  for  oifthe'oMi- 
the  carrying  into  effect  of  principles  set  forth  in  the  national  nanceP°wer- 
laws.     In  this   connection  it  may  be    well    to    recall  the 
French  practice  of    enacting   and    promulgating   national 
statutes    which   sometimes   do   little   more   than    declare 
principles   or   define   general  lines  of   policy,  leaving  the 
whole  range  of  detailed  provisions  to  be  worked  out  and 
applied  by  the  hierarchy  of  administrative  officials.2     When- 


1  The  nature  and  scope  of  the  mayor's  police  powers  are  dealt  with  at  length 
in  Leon  Thorlet's  Traite  de  police  a  Vusage  des  maires  (Paris,   1891)  ;   M. 
Lagarde's  La  police  municipale  (Alengon,  1895)  ;  JSmile  Miriel's  Des  rapports 
des  municipalites  et  du  pouvoir  central  au  matiere  de  police  (Paris,  1897)  ;  and 
M.  Peletant's  De  V organisation  de  la  police  (Dijon,  1899).  A  concise  but  very 
informing  discussion  of  the  topic  may  be  found  in  De  Croissy's  Dictionnaire 
municipal,  under  "  Police." 

2  On  the  significance  of  this  practice,  see  A.  Esmein's  discussion  of  "  La  de"- 
le"gation  du  pouvoir  l^gislatif ,"  in  Revue  politique  et  parlementaire,  August,  1894 ; 
and  H.  Berthe'lemy's  article  on  "Le  pouvoir  re"glementaire  du  President  de  la 
Republique,"  Ibid.  1898. 


76  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

ever,  therefore,  a  national  law  requires  an  application  of 
its  principles  in  the  local  jurisdictions,  the  appropriate 
ministry,  usually  the  Ministry  of  the  Interior,  issues  a 
circular  (circulaire  ministerielle)  to  the  prefects  of  the  eighty- 
seven  departments  of  the  republic,  setting  forth  the  new 
policy  and  indicating  the  general  lines  along  which  it  is  to 
be  applied.  This  circular  the  prefects  communicate  to  the 
mayors;  whereupon  the  mayor  of  each  municipality  issues  an 
ordinance  making  specific  regulations  in  accordance  with  the 
minister's  instructions  and  the  prefect's  additional  orders.1 
These  instructions  and  orders  must,  to  be  sure,  hew  pretty 
closely  to  the  lines  laid  down  in  the  law ;  for  in  France, 
as  in  all  other  countries  which  maintain  the  forms  of  dem- 
ocratic government,  all  administrative  regulations  that 
do  not  have  for  their  purport  the  more  efficient  carrying 
out  of  the  law  are  properly  regarded  as  incidents  of  des- 
potism.2 In  general,  therefore,  the  mayors'  arretes  do  not 
differ  materially  in  the  different  municipalities,  for  the 
instructions  issued  to  the  prefects  and  by  these,  in  turn,  to 
the  mayors  are  usually  explicit ;  indeed,  the  ministry  or 
the  prefecture  sometimes  sends  the  ordinance  fully  drafted 
and  hence  requiring  nothing  but  the  mayor's  signature.  In 
any  case,  the  mayor  is  apt  to  follow  closely  the  customary 
printed  form.3  Still,  his  discretionary  power  is  often  im- 
portant, especially  in  the  larger  cities,  where  the  municipal 
orders  have  to  provide  for  very  complicated  contingencies. 
In  addition  to  the  power  of  issuing  arretes  applying  in 
detail  the  provisions  of  national  laws,  the  mayor  may 

1  A  serviceable  volume  on  this  phase  of  the  mayor's  powers  is  M.  Tchernoff's 
Dupouvoir  reglementaire  des  maires  (Paris,  1899).     See  also  G.  Le  Breton's 
Dupouvoir  reglementaire  des  prefets  (Caen,  1900). 

2  See  H.  Berthfilemy  on  "  De  1'exercice  de  la  souverainetfi  par  1'autorite1  ad- 
ministrative," in  Revue  du  droit  public,  1904,  XXI.  209-227. 

3  These  forms  are  compiled,  in  convenient  order,  in  G.  Franceschi's  Diction- 
naire  des  formules  ou  mairie  pratique  (2  vols.,  Paris,  1903). 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  FRENCH  CITIES  77 

promulgate  ordinances  to  carry  out  resolutions  made  by   Ordinances 
the  council  within  its  legal  sphere    of  jurisdiction  ;  and   IhT'ma'yor's 
he    may    also    publish    on    his    own    initiative    such    or-  own  ""*&- 

J  tive. 

ders   as   he    deems  necessary    to   the   public    safety,   pro- 
vided that  these  are  not  inconsistent  with  the  general  laws 
of  the  land.1     He  may,  for  example,  prescribe  drastic  regu- 
lations   for    the   prevention   of   epidemics   of  disease,  for  Discretion- 
the    condemnation    of    unsanitary    buildings    within    the  h 


municipal  limits,  and  for  other  matters  incidental   to  the  P°rtant 

branches  of 

general    health.2     Within   recent    years    the   scope    of  his  local  admin- 
discretionary  powers  in  this    particular  sphere   has   been 
defined    and    in    some   degree   increased.3     His    authority 
with  respect  to  measures  for  protecting  property  from  fire 
is  also  broad.     It  is  worth  noting,  moreover,  that  even  for 
flagrant  errors  of  judgment  in  connection  with  the  issue  of 
regulations  the  mayor  cannot  be  held  responsible  in  the 
ordinary  civil  courts.4     Most  of  his  reglements  may  be  an-  Methods  of 
nulled  by  the  prefect  ;   but  even  to  this  check   there  are  ^inst  the 


limitations,  for  the  Council  of  State  has  frequently  sup-  p°uvoir 

J  reglemen- 

ported  mayors  in  their  appeals  against  prefectoral  vetoes  taire  of  the 
of  their  ordinances.5      The  private    individual   who   feels  may01 
himself  wronged  by  the  operation  of  a  mayor's  order  must 


1  In  La  lot  municipale,  §§  91-99,  may  be  found  a  long  list  of  matters  in- 
cluded within  this  sphere  of  the  mayor's  activity. 

2  L.  Jouarre,  Des  pouvoirs  de  Vautorite  municipale  en  matiere  (P hygiene  et  de 
salubrite  (Paris,  1899)  ;  Gustave  Jourdain,  Les  pouvoirs  des  maires  en  matiere 
de  salubrite  des  habitations  (3d  ed.,  Paris,  1900). 

8  Albert  Guerlin  de  Guer,  La  protection  de  la  sante  publique :  les  pouvoirs 
des  maires  et  la  loi  du  15  fevrier  1902  (Caen,  1903)  ;  M.  Mosny,  La  protection 
de  la  sante  publique  (Paris,  1904)  ;  and  G.  Arnat,  Pouvoirs  et  roles  des  maires  au 
point  de  vue  de  la  protection  de  la  sante  publique  (Paris,  1905). 

4  See  the  emphasis  with  which  this  is  stated  in  a  decision  of  the  Tribunal  des 
Conflite,  March  2,  1900,  reported  in  Revue  generate  d' administration,  1900,  I. 
309-311. 

6  An  instance  frequently  cited  is  afforded  by  the  decision  of  the  Council  of 
State,  June  7,  1902,  in  the  appeal  of  the  mayor  of  N6ris  against  the  action  of  the 
prefect  of  Allier  (Ibid.  1902,  II.  297). 


78 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


seek  annulment  of  such  order  from  the  administrative 
tribunals,  not  from  the  civil  courts.  The  redress  afforded 
by  these  tribunals  is,  however,  reasonably  liberal,  —  more 
so,  in  fact,  than  foreign  students  of  French  administrative 
organization  have  usually  appreciated  j1  for  it  is  an  error 
to  suppose  that  a  division  of  jurisdiction  between  ordinary 
and  administrative  courts  necessarily  reduces  the  remedial 
rights  which  an  injured  private  interest  is  able  to  assert 
against  the  acts  of  public  authority.2  Furthermore,  a 
petition  for  the  quashing  of  a  mayor's  reglement  is  not  the 
only  or  the  most  effective  means  of  securing  immunity 
from  its  operations.  An  individual  who  is  summoned 
before  the  ordinary  police  court  (tribunal  de  simple  police) 
for  violating  a  mayor's  order  may  plead  that  the  order  is 
in  excess  of  the  mayor's  legal  powers,  and  his  plea  will  be 
recognized  by  the  courts.  An  acquittal  on  this  ground  is, 
of  course,  tantamount  to  an  annulment  of  the  regulation. 

The  ordinance  power  of  the  French  mayor  puts  in  his 
nan(is  an  authority  which,  in  the  cities  of  the  United  States 
or  of  Great  Britain,  is  very  rarely  committed  to  any  official 
or  even  to  an  administrative  board.  It  is  not  a  mere  ad- 
A  delegation  ministrative  power;  it  is  in  a  sense  a  delegation  of  the 
sovereign  law-making  prerogative  of  the  state,  a  power  to 
make  laws  in  accordance  with  a  denned  general  principle, 
not  simply  authority  to  administer  the  provisions  of  laws 
already  made.8  It  is  the  practice  of  Anglo-Saxon  legisla- 
tures so  to  frame  laws  as  to  make  them  cover  every  con- 

1  Edouard  Pen-in,  De  la  competence  reglementaire  des  maires,  et  des  voies  de 
recours  contre  leurs  arretes  (Paris,  1904). 

2  On  this  point  see  H.  Berthfilemy,  Traite  elementaire  de  droit  administratif 
(5th  ed.,  Paris,  1908),  especially  Bk.  III.  ch.  i.  ;   F.  J.  Goodnow,  Comparative 
Administrative  Law  (2  vols.,  New  York,  1903)  ,  especially  II.  174-175  ;  and  E.  M. 
Parker  on  "  State  and  Official  Liability,"  in  Harvard  Law  Jteviev},  March,  1906, 
pp.  335-350. 

8  Of.  A.  Esmein  on  "  La  delegation  du  pouvoir  le"gislatif,"  in  Revue  politique 
etparlementaire,  August,  1894. 


important 


dinance 

power. 


legislative 
power. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  FRENCH  CITIES  79 

tingency  that  may  arise  ;  and  if  the  provisions  bear  more 
heavily  upon  one  community  than  upon  another  there  is  no 
legally  recognized  method  of  varying  the  pressure.  Ameri-  French  and 
can  and  British  law-makers  have  been  extremely  careful  m^hodTof 
to  avoid  anything  that  might  be  deemed  a  delegation  of  law-making- 
legislative  power  to  any  administrative  official  or  board  of 
officials.  Indeed,  it  is  well  settled  in  the  United  States 
that  legislative  power  as  such  cannot  be  legally  delegated 
to  administrative  officers  unless  the  constitution  under 
which  the  legislature  exists  has  expressly  authorized  such 
delegation.1  The  French,  on  the  other  hand,  by  giving  a 
limited  amount  of  actual  legislative  authority  to  the  presi- 
dent of  the  republic,  the  prefects,  and  the  mayors,  have 
secured  a  certain  degree  of  elasticity  and  adaptability  to 
local  conditions  in  the  substance  of  the  law  as  well  as  in 
its  administration. 

Besides  being  the  administrative  head  of  the  munici- 
pality, the  mayor  is  in  his  second  capacity  the  local  agent 
of  the  central  government.  In  the  exercise  of  powers 
incident  to  this  office  he  is  not  subject  to  control  by 
the  council ;  his  responsibility  is  to  the  higher  authorities 
alone,  particularly  to  the  prefect  of  the  department  in 
which  his  municipality  happens  to  be  situated.  In  addi- 
tion to  all  his  regular  municipal  duties,  the  French  mayor 
has  from  time  to  time  been  intrusted  by  national  law 
with  various  special  functions  which  he  exercises  as  local  Speciaifunc- 
agent  of  the  central  authority.  Although  the  number  mayor, 
of  these  special  powers  has  become  very  large,  many 
of  them  are  of  slight  intrinsic  importance,  requiring  but 
little  attention  and  that  at  considerable  intervals.  Others 
are  of  the  highest  significance  in  the  general  machinery  of 
French  administration,  involving  a  heavy  share  of  the 

1  See  the  list  of  cases  cited  in  Emlin  McClain's  Constitutional  Law  in  the 
United  States  (New  York,  1905),  64. 


80  GOVERNMENT  OP  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

mayor's  consideration,  and  laying  upon  the  staff  of  the 
mairie  a  large  amount  of  routine  work,  which  must  be 
performed  with  accuracy  and  thoroughness. 

Supervision  Among  the  more  important  of  the  special  functions 
register1/1  thus  intrusted  to  the  mayor  may  be  mentioned  the  local 
supervision  of  the  etat  civil,  of  which  every  mayor  is  ex- 
officio  registrar,1  the  post  devolving  in  his  absence  or  in- 
capacity upon  the  senior  adjoint.  The  system  of  etat  civil 
involves  the  preparation  and  maintenance  of  a  register  of 
all  the  births,  marriages,  and  deaths  that  take  place  within 
the  municipality,  together  with  much  other  data  concern- 
ing the  personnel  of  the  commune.  It  is  the  duty  of  the 
mayor  to  supervise  the  issue  of  the  actes  de  naissance,  and 
to  see  that  such  subsequent  indorsements  are  made  upon 
them  as  may  be  provided  for  by  law.2  Within  his  jurisdic- 
tion comes  also  the  whole  complicated  procedure  prelimi- 
nary to  the  contracting  of  civil  marriage,  a  work  which  in 
itself  concentrates  at  the  mairie  of  any  large  city  a  great 
deal  of  clerical  routine  ;  and  closely  related  is  his  charge 
of  all  the  municipal  archives  and  records,  and  his  re- 
sponsibility for  the  care  of  all  communal  rolls  and 
documents. 

Administra-        Again,  legal  responsibility  for  the  proper  administration, 

relating  to™  m  each  commune,  of  the  laws  relating  to  compulsory  mili- 

™^taryser"  tary  service  has  been  imposed  upon  the  mayor,  who  acts  in 

this  matter  as  the  local  agent  of  the  Ministry  of  War.     He 

prepares  each  year  the  list  of  persons  liable  to  service  ; 

1  An  account  of  the  system  of  supervising  the  etat  civil,  with  examples  of  the 
forms  used,  may  be  found  in  Charles  Ragel's  Manuel  formulaire  des  actes  de 
Vetat  civil  a  Vusage  des  maires  (Paris,  1898);   in  E.  Destruels's  Manuel  de 
Vofficier  d'etat  civil  (Paris,  1903);  and  in  J.  Monfreu's  Manuel  pratique  des  actes 
de  Vetat  civil  (Paris,  1904) .    For  a  short  sketch  of  the  system  see  Dictionnaire 
municipal,  under  "  Etat  civil." 

2  See  §§  45  and  57  of  the  Code  civil  as  modified  by  the  Loi  du  30  novembre 
1906  (Bulletin  des  lois,  1907,  I.  793  ff.);  also  J.  Rondelet's  Les  regies  nouvelles 
pour  la  delivrance  des  actes  de  naissance  (Paris,  1908). 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  FRENCH  CITIES  81 

and  this  list,  after  due  publication  and  revision,  he  trans- 
mits through  the  prefect  to  the  proper  military  authorities. 
It  is  his  task  to  see  that  those  who  are  subject  to 
military  service  are  duly  sent  forward  to  the  proper  place 
to  begin  their  training.  Until  a  few  years  ago  it  was 
the  duty  of  the  mayor  to  collect  the  prescribed  imposts 
from  those  who  were,  for  any  reason,  exempted  from 
military  service;  but  these  taxes  in  lieu  of  service  are  no 
longer  in  force.1  He  is  required  to  compile,  and  to 
keep  constantly  revised  and  up  to  date,  various  rosters 
showing  the  number  of  trained  and  untrained  men  within 
the  municipality  capable  of  bearing  arms,  together  with 
lists  of  horses,  vehicles,  arms,  carrier-pigeons,  and  other 
supplies  that  may  be  requisitioned  by  the  national  au- 
thorities in  the  event  of  war.  In  fact,  the  efficiency  of  the 
French  military  system  depends  largely  upon  the  work 
constantly  going  on  at  the  mairie  of  every  municipality, 
a  work  so  extensive  that  a  discussion  of  it  in  detail  has 
filled  two  bulky  volumes.2 

Important  as  are  the  military  functions  of  the  mayor  in  Special  du 

f  4-U  J          -Ul  •          -L-  t  t      tleS  ln 

years  of  peace,  they  are  doubly  so  in  time  ot  war  or  01  Of  war. 
rumors  of  war.  At  such  crises  the  mairie  becomes  at 
once  the  local  depot  of  the  war  authorities  for  the  collec- 
tion and  transmission  of  supplies,  horses,  forage,  and  so 
forth,  as  well  as  a  centre  for  all  the  incidents  connected 
with  mobilization,  such  as  the  securing  of  transportation 
for  troops  and  reserves,  the  providing  of  rations  for  bodies 
of  men  en  route  through  the  municipality,  the  surveillance 
of  strangers,  aliens,  and  suspicious  persons,  and  the  secur- 
ing of  information  of  all  sorts  for  the  use  of  the  military 


1  They  were  abolished  by  the  Loi  du  21  mars  1905  (Bulletin  des  lois,  1905, 
I.  1265  ff.). 

2  Le'on  Bauer's  Les  devoirs  des  maires  et  des  municipalites  en  ce  qui  concerne 
Varmee  (Paris,  1894);  and  C.  Rabany's  La  lot  sur  le  recrutement  (Paris,  1906). 

G 


82  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

authorities.1  The  36,000  mayors  of  France  at  once  become 
so  many  military  agents  of  the  central  government. 
Minor  func-  Still  other  tasks  of  somewhat  less  importance  have 
mayor.  been  put  by  law  upon  the  shoulders  of  the  mayor.  He  is 
responsible  for  the  proper  supervision  of  all  matters  con- 
nected with  the  preparation  of  the  voters'  lists  used  in  the 
national  and  departmental  elections ;  for  the  exercise  of 
various  important  functions  that  have  to  do  with  the  ad- 
ministration of  the  system  of  direct  taxation ;  and  for  a 
good  deal  of  the  work  incidental  to  the  taking  of  the 
national  quinquennial  census.  He  is  expected  to  preside 
at  meetings  of  the  local  school-commission,  and  to  per- 
form sundry  duties  pertaining  to  the  supervision  of  the 
system  of  primary  education.  He  is  president  of  the  com- 
mission that  manages  the  poor-relief  bureau  of  the  munici- 
pality (bureau  de  'bienfaisance),  and  is  expected  to  be  a 
leader  in  all  local  enterprises  of  a  philanthropic  nature.2 
An  enumeration  of  all  the  minor  responsibilities  which  a 
paternal  government  has  laid  upon  the  mayor  would, 
indeed,  make  up  a  rather  formidable  list. 

Tasks  of  the       From  the  foregoing  general  survey  of  mayoral  functions 
numerous      it  may  be  concluded  that  the  mayor  of  a  large  French  city 
and  varied.    mus^  ^g  a  pretty  busy  man ;  and  one  may  be  pardoned 
for  wondering  why  any  citizen   should   feel   disposed   to 
assume  such  a  heavy  load  of  detailed  responsibilities  with- 
out any  remuneration  whatever.     It  has  been  estimated 
that  the  French  mayor  has  more  than  five  hundred  spe- 
cific official  acts  to  perform  in  the  course  of  each  year, 
every  one  of  them  to  be  done  at  a  definite  time  and  in  a 
prescribed  way ;   and   this  does  not  include    his  general 

1  These  military  duties  are  explained  in  Paul  Dislere's  Les  devoirs  des  maires 
en  cas  de  mobilisation  generate  (Paris,  1893). 

2  For  an  exact  statement  of  the  mayor's  duties  in  this  sphere,  see  Derouin, 
Gory,  and  Worms,  Traite  de  r assistance  publique  (2  vols.,  Paris,  1901). 


THE   GOVERNMENT  OF  FRENCH  CITIES  83 

duties  of  issuing  ordinances,  supervising  public  property, 
caring  for  the  public  health  and  safety,  and  preparing  and 
putting  his  budget  through  the  council.  He  is,  in  the 
words  of  one  writer,  "loaded  with  innumerable  arid  ab- 
sorbing functions,"  and  is,  "  for  those  whom  he  governs, 
an  almost  absolute  master."  1 

But  while  the  legal  powers  and  responsibilities  of  the  Limitation 
mayor  are  great,  there  are  some  significant  practical  checks  powers, 
upon  the  free  exercise  of  his  authority.     In  the  first  place, 
the  municipal  council  exercises  a   considerable  degree   of  The  council 
control  over  his  actions,  even  when  it  has  no  definite  legal  fing  i^!01" 
warrant  for  so  doing.     By  its  command  of  the  municipal  ence- 
purse-strings  it  is  very  frequently  able  to  make  the  mayor's 
policy  conform  to   its  own  wishes   in  various  important 
matters  ;  and  even  in  the  sphere  of  municipal   police,  a 
function  in  which  the  mayor  is   supposed  to   be  entirely 
free  from  its  restraint,  it  very  often  makes  its  influence 
felt.     To  be  successful  in  his  administration  a  mayor  must 
have  the  council's  cooperation  ;    and  this  he  can  secure,  in 
many  cases,  only  by  frequent  concessions  to  the  sense  of 
that   body.      When  he  expects  reelection  it  is  of   course 
more  than  ever  desirable  that  he  should  defer  to  the  wishes 
of  the  councillors. 

In  the  second  place,  it  should  always  be   remembered  Thepre- 
that  all  of  the  mayor's  acts  as  agent  of  the  central  govern-  yeiiiance." 
ment  are  performed  under  the  strictest  surveillance   and 
control.     He  may  be  suspended  from  his  office  by  the  pre-  Suspension 
feet  for  a  period  not  exceeding  one  month,  and  this  sus-  onhe  mayor 
pension  may  be  extended  to  not  more  than  three  months  from  office> 
by  the  minister  of  the  interior.2     He  may,  by  presidential 
decree,  be  removed  from  office  altogether,  and  in  this  case 
may  not  be  reflected  to  his  post  by  the  council  for  the 

1  Paul  Deschanel,  La  decentralisation  (Paris,  1896),  7  ff. 
3  La  loi  municipale,  §  86. 


84 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


Securities 
against  the 
arbitrary 
use  of  this 
power. 


space  of  one  year.  Curiously  enough,  however,  he  does 
not  lose  his  seat  in  the  council  by  virtue  of  his  suspension 
or  dismissal.1  Against  an  order  of  suspension  issued  by 
the  prefect  he  has  a  right  of  appeal  to  the  Council  of 
State,  on  the  ground  that  the  prefect  has  exceeded  his 
legal  powers  or  has  violated  the  forms  of  law  ;  but  the 
justice  or  the  expediency  of  the  prefect's  act  he  may  not 
call  into  question  before  this  body.2  Against  a  decree  of 
suspension  by  the  minister,  or  of  removal  by  the  president, 
he  may  avail  himself  of  the  same  means  of  redress.3 

It  is  not  to  be  inferred,  however,  that  the  powers  of 
suspension  and  removal  are  exercised  in  any  arbitrary 
fashion  ;  for  the  accountability  of  all  the  higher  officers 
to  the  elected  representatives  of  the  people  in  the  national 
Chamber  of  Deputies  is  complete  and  direct.  If,  there- 
fore, the  minister  of  the  interior  supports  or  advises  any 
suspension  or  removal  which  affords  ground  for  criticism, 
he  can,  by  means  of  an  interpellation  upon  the  point,4  be 
compelled  by  the  deputies  from  the  municipality  con- 
cerned to  justify  his  action  before  either  Chamber.  In  this 
roundabout  way  the  deputies  are  brought  into  indirect  but 
none  the  less  influential  relation  to  local  administration ; 
and  by  their  attitude  the  relations  between  the  mairie  and 
the  prefecture  are  to  a  considerable  extent  determined. 
There  is,  indeed,  much  complaint  that  deputies,  especially 

1  "  Rapport  fait  a  la  Chambre  des  De"put6s  par  M.  Felix  Faure,  stance  du  29 
d6cembre  1880,"  cited  in  Morgand's  La  lot  municipale,  I.  546. 

2  Revue  generate  d' administration,  1898,  III.  415. 

8  A  very  recent  enactment  (Loi  du  8  juillet  1908)  lias  given  to  the  mayors 
some  additional  securities  against  arbitrary  suspension  or  dismissal.  No  such 
action  may  now  be  taken  by  the  higher  authorities  until  after  the  mayor  has 
been  called  upon  for  an  explanation  of  the  matters  at  issue ;  and  the  order  of 
suspension  or  the  decree  of  removal  must  in  every  case  state  explicitly  the 
grounds  upon  which  it  is  issued. 

4  On  the  "  interpellation  "  procedure,  see  A.  L.  Lowell,  Governments  and 
Parties,  I.  117-126 ;  also  J.  Poudra  and  E.  Pierre,  Traite  pratique  de  droit 
parlementaire  (8  vols.,  Versailles,  1878-1880),  VII.  ch.  iv. 


THE   GOVERNMENT  OF  FRENCH  CITIES  85 

those  who  happen  to  be  supporters  of  the  administration 
at  Paris,  are  in  the  habit  of  putting  undue  pressure  upon 
the  local  prefectures,  and  this  for  purely  political  ends ; 
and  it  is  also  said  that  a  mayor  who  incurs  the  antagonism 
of  the  ministerial  deputies  from  his  city  is  very  likely  to 
discover  the  consequences  in  the  course  of  his  relations 
with  the  prefect.  Many  ministerial  deputies  appear  to  look 
upon  the  prefect  as  a  partisan  agent,  and  to  expect  him 
to  use  his  large  jurisdiction  over  the  municipal  authorities 
in  ways  that  will  conduce  to  the  advantage  of  the  party 
in  power  at  the  national  capital. 

Although    the    mayor    is    directly    responsible    for   the  The  ad- 
prompt  and   efficient  performance    of    all    the    functions  Instant" 
which  the  law  imposes  upon  him,  he  may  distribute  the  may°rs- 
actual  work  of  the  office  among  his  ad  joints,  who  in  turn 
may  cast  most  of  the  routine  upon  the  permanent  civic 
officials    and    employees.     In    the    distribution    of   work 
among  the  adjoints  the  mayor  has  entire  discretion.     He 
may   assign   an   adjoint    much    or   little    to    do,    or   may 
leave  him  to  serve  out  his  term  without  any  duties  at  all. 
Though  he   does  not  select  him  and  cannot  remove  him 
from  office,  he  can  thus  render  him  powerless  in  the  ad- 
ministrative affairs  of  the  municipality.     As  a  matter  of 
practice,  the  adjoints  are  assigned  to  the  various  depart-  Division  of 
ments  of  civic  administration  according  to  their  respective  ^ong* the 
qualifications  and  experience,  the  mayor  as  a  rule  retain-  ^joints, 
ing  the  police  department  as  his  own  share.     One  adjoint 
is  put  in  charge  of  streets,  another  of  fire  protection,  a 
third  of  sanitation,  and  so  on,  the  number  of  departments 
usually  corresponding  to  the  number  of  adjoints  available. 
These  officers  thus  perform  functions  very  similar  to  those 
which,    in    the    English    boroughs,   are    assumed    by  the 
various  standing  committees  of  the  council  and  exercised 
largely  by  the  chairmen  of  such  committees.     The  system, 


86 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


The  perma- 
nent beads 
of  the  mu- 
nicipal de- 
partments. 


The  secre- 
taire de 

mairie. 


His  func- 
tions and 
influence. 


it  will  be  noted,  concentrates  all  responsibility  upon  the 
mayor,  but  enables  him  to  apportion  the  work  at  his 
discretion. 

The  adjoints,  in  their  work  of  administration,  are  after 
all  only  amateurs ;  hence,  though  many  of  them  may  have 
long  consecutive  terms  of  service  in  general  charge  of  the 
same  departments,  and  may  thus  acquire  considerable  profi- 
ciency, they  are  forced  to  lean  heavily  upon  the  higher 
employees  of  the  municipality,  —  upon  the  professional 
heads  of  the  various  departments.  Chief  among  these 
heads  is  the  secretaire  de  mairie,  who  has  charge  of  the 
clerical  staff  at  the  civic  headquarters,  an  officer  upon 
whom  the  mayor  is  especially  dependent  for  the  proper 
carrying  out  of  his  functions.  Every  commune  in  France, 
from  smallest  to  largest,  numbers  this  official  among  its 
permanent  employees,  in  the  smaller  villages  the  post 
being  regarded  as  one  of  the  perquisites  of  the  local 
schoolmaster.  In  the  largest  municipalities,  however,  the 
secretary  is  a  professional  and  reasonably-paid  officer,  who 
devotes  all  his  time  and  energies  to  the  numerous  duties 
of  his  position.  Not  only  has  he  immediate  charge  of  all 
the  clerical  work  of  the  mairie,  but  to  him  are  intrusted 
most  of  the  responsibilities  which  the  central  authorities 
have  laid  upon  the  mayor.  Through  his  long  tenure  in 
office  he  becomes  the  custodian  of  communal  traditions,  a 
local  authority  on  all  points  of  municipal  law  and  pro- 
cedure to  whom  all  may  turn  for  information,  and  is  in 
every  sense  the  most  influential  officer  on  the  whole  staff 
of  civic  employees.  "  He  is,  indeed,  the  modest  auxiliary 
who  studies  earnestly  all  local  questions,  who  prepares  all 
reports,  and  finds  solutions  for  all  local  problems;  the 
man  who  is  in  constant  touch  with  the  public,  who  repre- 
sents the  municipality  before  other  administrations,  and 
who  rides  fearlessly  into  the  labyrinth  of  law,  decrees,  cir- 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  FRENCH  CITIES  87 

culars,  and  instructions ;  the  citizen,  in  a  word,  who  alone 
represents  and  maintains  local  traditions  in  the  days  when 
universal  suffrage  supplants  the  erstwhile  masters  of  the 
city  by  the  new-elect,  to  whom  sound  counsel  and  guidance 
are  a  necessity."  l 

The  secretary  is,  in  fact,  to  the  municipal  authorities  Maybecom- 
of  France  what  the  town  clerk  is  to  the  mayors  of  Eng-  English*  * 
land ;  he  is  even  more,  for  his  duties  are  much  more  town  clerk- 
numerous,  more  varied,  and  more  responsible  because  of 
the  large  measure  of  dependence  which  the  central  gov- 
ernment puts  upon  local  administration.  To  a  very  large 
degree,  indeed,  the  efficiency  of  municipal  administration 
hinges  upon  the  ability,  accuracy,  and  tact  of  this  impor- 
tant  officer,  and  upon  the  discipline  and  esprit  de  corps 
which  he  is  able  to  maintain  among  the  staff  at  the  city 
hall,  a  staff  usually  divided  into  four  bureaus,  each  with 
its  chief  and  deputy-chief  and  its  corps  of  subordinate  offi- 
cers.2 Without  an  able  secretary  the  French  municipality 
would  soon  find  its  administrative  machinery  very  badly 
clogged  and  its  mayor  hopelessly  entangled  in  the  duties 
of  his  own  office.  Nevertheless,  although  the  secretary, 
like  the  English  town  clerk,  does  perhaps  more  than  any 
other  single  individual  to  keep  municipal  administration 
running  smoothly,  the  importance  of  his  position  has  not 
always  been  fully  appreciated  by  students  of  local  gov- 
ernment, arid,  indeed,  the  officer  himself  has  rarely  received 
much  credit  in  his  own  community. 

Another  prominent  municipal   officer  is   the    treasurer  The  munici- 
(receveur  municipal),  who  in  the   larger  municipalities  is  urer. 

1  R.  Martineau,  Les  secretaires  de  mairie  (Paris,  1906),  11.     In  this  volume 
may  be  found  a  full  discussion  of  the  position  and  powers  of  the  secretary.     See 
also  G.  Dubarry,  Le  secretaire  de  mairie  (Paris,  1892)  ;   aud  E.  Bourgueil,  Le 
vade-mecum  de  Vinstituteur  secretaire  de  mairie  (Paris,  1892). 

2  These  bureaus  are,  ordinarily,  (1)  secretariat,  (2)  bureau  de  Vetat  civil, 
(3)  bureau  militaire,  (4)  bureau  de  police. 


88  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

selected  by  the  president  of  the  republic  from  a  list  of  three 
names  submitted  by  the  municipal  council.  The  treasurer, 
who  must  be  paid  and  provided  with  quarters  by  the  mu- 
nicipality, is  the  custodian  of  the  communal  funds  and  the 
general  head  of  the  city's  department  of  finance.1  Since, 
however,  the  primary  responsibility  for  municipal  payments 
rests  with  the  mayor,  the  treasurer  may  not  refuse  to  make 
a  disbursement  in  response  to  a  mayor's  warrant  unless 
there  be  no  appropriation  for  the  purpose  or  no  funds  on 
hand,  or  unless  the  proper  vouchers  be  not  attached  to 
the  warrant.  The  treasurer,  like  the  mayor,  presents  an 
annual  report  to  the  municipal  council,  which  examines 
the  paper  thoroughly  before  taking  up  the  budget  the  next 
year.  This  report  must  also,  in  due  course,  be  submitted 
for  audit  to  the  national  receiver  of  finances ;  and  if  the 
income  of  the  municipality  exceeds  30,000  francs  it  must 
also  be  laid  before  the  national  Court  of  Accounts  (^Cour 
des  Comptes),  which  has  auditing  jurisdiction  over  almost 
the  whole  field  of  public  finances  in  France.  If  the  income 
be  less  than  this  sum,  the  scrutiny  takes  place  at  the  local 
prefecture. 

The  chief  A  third  officer  invested  with  large  discretionary  power  in 

of  police!"™  ^ne  French  commune  is  the  chief  commissaire  of  police, 
who  is,  however,  appointed  by  the  president  of  the  re- 
public, and  who,  although  as  regards  his  functions  he  cor- 
responds to  the  chief  constable  of  the  English  borough 
and  is  paid  out  of  municipal  funds,  is  not  in  France  re- 
garded as  a  municipal  official.  Every  other  civic  depart- 
ment has  likewise  its  permanent  professional  chief,  usually 
with  one  or  more  deputy  heads,  nearly  all  of  whom  are 
selected  by  the  mayor. 

1  See  Dictionnaire  municipal,  under  "Receveurs  municipaux";  and,  for 
further  details,  Adam's  Guide  pratique  du  percepteur-receveur  municipal  (Paris, 
1897).  The  Situation  financiere  des  communes,  published  annually,  contains 
elaborate  statistics  of  communal  expenditures  drawn  from  the  treasurers' 
reports. 


THE   GOVERNMENT  OF  FRENCH  CITIES  89 

The  number  of  employees  under  these  heads  depends,  of  Minor  offi- 
course,  upon  the  size  of  the  municipality.  When  there  are 
only  a  few,  the  mayor  commonly  makes  appointments 
upon  his  own  personal  knowledge ;  but  in  the  larger  cities, 
where  the  employees  are  numbered  by  hundreds  or  even 
thousands,  he  usually  intrusts  his  adjoints  or  the  perma- 
nent heads  with  what  virtually  amounts  to  the  appointing 
power.  The  exercise  of  this  power  is  not  restricted,  more-  Methods  of , 
over,  by  anything  corresponding  to  what  is  commonly  ^ePntlnt 
known  in  the  United  States  as  "civil  service  regulations"; 
appointments  to  municipal  posts  in  France  are  not  usually 
made  as  the  result  of  any  competitive  examination.1  For 
many  of  the  technical  posts,  it  is  true,  only  qualified 
engineers,  or  persons  of  some  professional  training,  are 
eligible;  but,  though  many  restrictions  of  this  sort  are 
prescribed  by  national  laws  or  by  ministerial  instructions, 
the  mayor  and  his  adjoints  still  have  wide  scope  for 
the  exercise  of  their  own  discretion.2  The  French  seem 
in  general  to  put  more  reliance  upon  the  plan  of  appoint- 
ing an  officer  for  a  probationary  period  (usually  a  year  or 
two),  in  order  to  test  him  in  the  work  of  his  post,  than 
upon  the  practice  of  holding  competitive  examinations  to 
determine  the  relative  fitness  of  candidates,  —  a  policy,  it 
may  be  added,  which  they  apply  to  national,  departmental, 
and  municipal  offices  alike. 

On  the  whole,  the  character  of  the  French  municipal  ser-  Character  of 
vice  has  been  satisfactorily  high.     Partisan  considerations  municipai 
doubtless  play  some  part  in  appointments  ;  but  it  is  seldom  service- 
that  offices  of  importance  are  given  as  rewards  for  political 

1  Important  exceptions  are  to  be  found  in  the  case  of  most  of  the  appoint- 
ments made  within  the  prefecture  of  the  Seine,  in  Lyons,  and  in  some  of  the 
other  largest  cities.     It  may  be  added  that  appointments  to  posts  in  the  national 
service  are  now  almost  always  made  as  the  result  of  competitive  examinations. 

2  Doisnel  and  Gaudoin,  Les  secretaires  de  mairie  et  employes  communaux 
(Elbceuf,  1902). 


90  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

services  to  persons  who  are  unequal  to  the  responsibilities 
imposed.  The  tenure  of  almost  all  the  higher  municipal 
posts  is  virtually  during  life  or  efficiency;  and  at  the 
close  of  a  long  term  of  satisfactory  service  an  official 
is  provided,  in  most  of  the  larger  cities,  with  an  annual 
pension.  This  liberal  treatment  by  the  municipality, 
combined  with  the  length  of  tenure  and  the  practice  of 
requiring  probationary  service,  no  doubt  has  a  tendency 
to  secure  satisfactory  results  from  the  staff  of  municipal 
employees. 

French  It  would  not  be  too  much  to  say  that  the  cities  of  France 

are  administered  very  largely  by  corps  of  permanent  mu- 


tered  by  ex-  njcipal  officials  acting  under  a  broad  range  of  authority  com- 
mitted to  them  by  the  mayors.  Though  apparently  vested 
in  the  hands  of  laymen,  the  administration  is  in  reality, 
therefore,  distinctly  professional.  The  French  have  scrupu- 
lously maintained  the  forms  of  an  elective,  non-bureaucratic 
municipal  government  ;  but  they  have  taken  similar  care 
to  secure  that  efficiency  which  comes  from  the  actual  per- 
formance of  all  important  administrative  functions  by 
skilled  and  experienced  officials,  who,  secure  in  the  tenure 
of  their  posts,  go  about  their  work  with  little  or  no  cap- 
tious interference  from  the  elected  representatives  of  the 
people. 

Provisions          Before  leaving  the  discussion  of  municipal  organization, 

for  the  syn-    ,    . 

dicatingof  let  us  glance  at  the  facilities  that  have  been  afforded  by 
a  law  supplementary  to  the  code  permitting  the  coopera- 
tion of  adjacent  municipalities  in  the  establishment  and 
maintenance  of  such  utilities  as  are  of  joint  or  common 
interest.  When  the  councils  of  two  or  more  communes  of 
the  same  department  or  of  adjoining  departments  agree 
that  any  projected  enterprise  is  of  common  utility  to  them, 
the  president  of  the  republic  is  empowered,  on  the  advice  of 
the  minister  of  the  interior,  to  issue  a  decree  forming  such 


munes. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  FRENCH  CITIES  91 

municipalities  into  an  association  called  a  "  syndicate  of 
communes."1  Such  a  syndicate  receives  the  status  of  a 
public  corporation,  with  power  to  acquire  and  hold  prop- 
erty and  to  establish  and  maintain  public  services  under 
the  same  restrictions  and  subject  to  the  same  higher 
supervision  as  the  individual  communes  comprising  the 
union.  The  enterprises  undertaken  by  a  syndicate  of  com-  Administra- 
munes  are  in  charge  of  a  committee  composed  of  delegates  ducted  8yD" 


from  the  various  municipal  councils  interested,  each  council 

enterprises. 

naming  two  ;  but  the  proceedings  of  this  committee  are 
subject  to  the  general  restrictions  imposed  by  the  code 
upon  the  councils  themselves,  and  all  its  deliberations 
must,  like  theirs,  be  confirmed  by  the  prefect.  The  com- 
mittee draws  up  its  own  budget  —  the  receipts  accruing 
mainly  from  assessments  upon  the  communes  comprised 
in  the  syndicate  —  and  arranges  its  own  expenditures. 
The  facilities  thus  afforded  by  the  law  of  1890  have  served 
the  interests  of  economy  in  some  of  the  smaller  munici- 
palities, but  have  not  been  employed  by  many  of  the  larger 
towns  and  cities  ;  even  for  syndicating  smaller  units,  in- 
deed, they  have  not  been  used  so  broadly  as  the  framers 
of  the  measure  had  reason  to  expect.  Only  about  a 
score  of  syndicates  have  been  formed  in  almost  as  many 
years. 

The  municipal  code  of  1884  did  not,  as  we  have  seen,  The  govem- 
apply  to  Paris.     The  metropolis  has  for  a  long  period  re-  paris. 
tained  its  own  special  form  of  administration,  which  differs 
in  many  important  respects  from  that  arranged  for  the 
other  cities  of  France.     In  thus  providing  a  regime  excep- 
tionnel  for  the  capital,  the  action  of  the  French  authorities 
is,  however,   not  unique  ;    for    London  and    Washington 

1  Lot  du  22  mars  1890,  in  Bulletin  des  lois,  1890,  I.  789-792.  See  also  the 
supplementary  Circulaire  ministerielle  of  August  10,  1890  ;  and  Morgand's  La 
loi  municipale,  II.  614-647. 


92 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


The  ar- 
rangements 
of  1871. 


Reasons  for 
the  regime 
exceptionnel 
in  Paris. 


The  city's 
boisterous 
traditions. 


both  have  municipal  administrations  which  differ  very 
radically  from  those  of  other  British  and  American  cities, 
and  even  Berlin  is  in  some  respects  governed  differently 
from  the  ordinary  Prussian  municipality.1  The  Parisian 
system,  so  far  as  the  organization  of  the  municipal  council 
of  the  city  is  concerned,  rests  upon  the  law  of  April  14, 
1871 ; 2  but  the  functions  and  powers  of  the  prefects,  who 
form  the  apex  of  metropolitan  administration,  are  set  forth 
in  earlier  laws.3  When  the  law  of  1871  was  passed,  it  was 
expected  that  the  system  then  established  would  be  only 
temporary,  and  that  in  course  of  time  Paris  would  receive 
additional  concessions  in  the  way  of  local  control  over  her 
administrative  organs ;  but  no  important  step  in  this  direc- 
tion has  since  been  taken  by  the  national  authorities,  and 
the  city  is  still  governed  under  the  somewhat  makeshift 
arrangements  made  thirty-seven  years  ago.4 

For  placing  and  maintaining  the  capital  under  a  special 
regimen  the  French  government  has,  of  course,  very  ample 
justification.  Not  only  is  Paris  the  largest  city  of  the  re- 
public, being  many  times  as  populous  as  its  nearest  rival, 
but  it  has  always  played  a  part  in  national  politics  much 
more  influential  than  even  its  towering  size  has  seemed  to 
warrant.  Again  and  again  it  has  determined  almost  abso- 
lutely the  trend  of  national  history,  and  not  always  to  the 
interest  of  the  French  people  as  a  whole.  The  various 
French  revolutions  from  1789  to  1871  all  had  their  origin 
in  the  capital;  and  in  the  changes  of  government  which 
followed  on  the  heels  of  these  disturbances  the  people  of 
the  provinces  were  treated  with  but  meagre  consideration. 

1  See  below,  p.  208. 

a  Loi  du  U  avril  1871,  §§  10-17,  in  Bulletin  des  lois,  1871,  I.  97-101. 

8  Loi  du  24juillet  1837,  modified  by  Loi  du  24juillet  1867. 

4  The  changes  since  1871  may  be  studied  in  Paul  Massat's  Manuel  de  legisla- 
tion administrative  speciale  a  la  ville  de  Paris  et  au  departement  de  la  Seine 
(Paris,  1901). 


THE   GOVERNMENT  OF  FRENCH  CITIES  93 

Paris,  as  has  aptly  been  said,  has  always  been  both  the 
head  and  the  heart  of  France ;  hence  it  is  scarcely  a  mat- 
ter for  surprise  that  the  authorities  of  the  Third  Republic 
should  have  deemed  it  wise  to  hold  a  tight  rein  over  a  city 
whose  political  fickleness  has  become  traditional,  and  whose 
record  for  making  trouble  has  hardly  been  matched  by  any 
other  city  of  Europe. 

Again,  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  the  nation  has  large  The  repub- 
material  interests  in  Paris.  The  city  is,  for  the  most  i^terests^n 
part,  what  the  funds  of  the  national  government  have  made  its  caPital- 
it ;  for  during  the  Napoleonic  era,  and  especially  during 
the  Second  Empire,  its  public  edifices  were  in  the  main 
built  by  the  lavish  expenditure  of  millions  drawn  from 
the  coffers  of  the  state.  Furthermore,  within  the  city  limits 
are  located  enormous  amounts  of  national  property  in  the 
form  of  monuments,  museums,  legislative  halls,  and  the 
like ;  hence  any  lapse  in  the  proper  maintenance  of  law 
and  order  is  liable  to  be  fraught  with  serious  consequences 
to  the  interests  of  the  national  government.  In  a  word,  it 
is  generally  felt  that  the  city  must  be  kept  upon  its  good 
behavior,  and  that  to  insure  this  end  the  national  author- 
ities, who  represent  the  people  as  a  whole,  are  justified  in 
holding  the  municipality  under  more  than  ordinary  re- 
straint. 

During  the  period  of  the  Second  Empire  the  administra-  The  frame- 
tion  of  Paris  was  intrusted  almost  wholly  to  two  prefects  p°^  °*y_ 
appointed   directly  by  the  emperor.1     These   two  officers  eminent, 
were  retained  by  the  arrangements  made  in  1871,  and  they  The  two 
still  continue  to  divide  between  them  the  actual  manage-  Prefects- 
ment  of  all  municipal  affairs;  but  the  work  of  local  legis- 
lation, and  to  some  extent  the  general  direction  of  muni- 
cipal policy,  have  been  committed  to  a  large  municipal 

1  On  the  earlier  municipal  history  of  Paris,  see  Frederick  Lecaron's  Les  orir 
gines  de  la  municipalite  parisienne  (2  vols.,  Paris,  1881-1882). 


94 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


The  prefect 
of  the  Seme. 


Political 
considera- 
tions in  his 
appoint- 
ment. 


council  composed  of  eighty  members  elected  by  the  voters 
of  the  city.  This  council,  with  the  prefects,  who  are 
known  respectively  as  the  prefect  of  the  Seine  and  the 
prefect  of  police,  constitute  the  framework  of  metropolitan 
administration.1 

The  prefect  of  the  Seine  is  a  national  officer  appointed 
^  ^e  presj(jen^  of  fae>  republic  on  recommendation  of  the 
ministers,  to  all  of  whom  the  prefect  is  immediately 
subordinate.  Like  the  prefects  of  other  French  depart- 
ments, he  holds  office  for  no  definite  term,  but  is  removable 
at  any  time  by  the  president.  In  practice,  indeed,  the  length 
of  term  has  shown  considerable  variation  ;  for,  although  the 
department  has  had  seven  prefects  since  1871  (the  average 
term  being  thus  about  five  years),  it  has  had  but  two  dur- 
ing the  last  quarter  of  a  century,  —  the  present  incumbent, 
M.  J.  G.  C.  de  Selves,  having  held  the  post  since  1896,  and 
his  predecessor,  M.  Poubelle,  for  thirteen  years  prior  to 
that  date.2  The  office  is  very  remunerative  as  French  pub- 
lic posts  go,  the  prefect  of  the  Seine  now  receiving  fifty 
thousand  francs  per  year,  in  addition  to  princely  quarters 
at  the  Hotel  de  Ville  and  a  liberal  allowance  for  expenses. 

In  one  sense  the  appointment  to  this  prefecture  is  politi- 
cal ;  that  is  to  say,  when  the  post  becomes  vacant  the  new 
appointee  is  likely  to  be  an  officer  who  has  been  a  promi- 
nent supporter  of  the  political  faction  or  group  of  factions 
that  hold  the  reins  of  power  in  the  nation.  The  office  is 
not,  however,  political  in  the  sense  that  every  change  in 
national  administration  is  liable  to  bring  about  a  change 

1  The  best  convenient  outline  of  Parisian  government  is  G.  Artigues's  Le 
regime  municipal  de  la  ville  de  Paris  (Paris,  1898).     M.  Block's  Administra- 
tion de  la  ville  de  Paris  et  du  departement  de  la  Seine  (Paris,  1898)  is  also  useful. 

2  The  list  of  prefects  may  be  found  in  Encyclopedic  municipale  de  la  ville  de 
Paris  (2  vols.,  Paris,  1904),  I.  Introd.  cxi.     This  useful  compilation  also  con- 
tains a  store  of  information  relating  to  the  personnel  and  the  organization  of 
Parisian  local  government. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  FRENCH  CITIES  95 

at  the  prefecture  ;  on  the  contrary,  a  score  of  administrations 
have  come  and  gone  during  the  terms  of  Messrs.  Poubelle 
and  De  Selves  without  any  suggestion  that  these  officers 
should  be  removed.  It  is,  of  course,  quite  true  that  the 
prefect  of  the  Seine,  as  an  immediate  agent  of  the  central 
government,  must  be  in  working  sympathy  with  his  su- 
periors for  the  time  being  ;  but  changes  in  the  headship  of 
the  Ministry  of  the  Interior  do  not  usually  involve  any  im- 
portant changes  in  the  general  policy  of  the  office,  for  the 
real  work  of  supervision  over  all  branches  of  local  govern- 
ment is  performed  by  permanent  under-officers,  who  do  not 
move  when  ministries  come  and  go.  The  relations  be- 
tween the  ministry  and  the  prefecture  are,  indeed,  so  well 
defined  by  law,  by  decree,  or  by  administrative  decisions 
and  precedents,  that  the  various  shif  tings  in  national  admin- 
istration have  little  influence  at  the  Hotel  de  Ville. 

The  office  of  prefect  in  any  French  department  is  one  Difficult 
that  requires  a  rare  combination  of  skill,  firmness,  integ-  theoffice. 
rity,  and  tact ;  but  among  all  the  eighty-seven  divisions  of 
the  republic  the  department  of  the  Seine  is  the  one  in  which 
the  possession  of  these  qualities  by  the  prefect  is  the  most 
urgently  demanded.  The  office  of  this  prefect  is  perhaps 
the  most  influential  in  the  whole  range  of  French  local  ad- 
ministration ;  since,  therefore,  the  prestige  which  its  tenure 
confers  upon  the  occupant  is  naturally  very  great,  it  is  al- 
most imperative  that  the  Seine  prefect  shall  be  a  man  of 
tested  administrative  ability,  a  demand  which  has  in  gen- 
eral been  fully  met.  Since  the  establishment  of  the  office 
by  Napoleon  I.  its  roll  of  occupants  has  made  up  a  very 
distinguished  list,  comprising  such  familiar  names  as  those 
of  Odilon  Barrot,  Baron  Haussmann,  Jules  Ferry,  L6on  Say, 
Ferdinand  Duval,  and  several  others  known  far  beyond  the 
borders  of  France.  The  post  has  not  been  held  by  mere 
bureaucrats;  the  incumbents  have  not,  like  too  many  of 


96  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

the  German  biirgermeisters,  been  merely  efficient  adminis- 
trative machines.  On  the  contrary,  most  of  them  have  been 
men  of  mark  drawn  from  active  public  life,  who  have 
brought  to  the  office  unusual  qualities  of  initiative  and 
originality. 

Powers  of  The  powers  of  the  prefect  of  the  Seine  may  be  grouped 
under  two  main  heads.  In  the  first  place,  he  possesses 
in  the  department  of  the  Seine,  —  which  includes  not  only 
the  city  of  Paris,  but  the  environs  for  some  distance  be- 
yond the  city  walls,  —  all  the  powers  that  appertain  to 
the  office  of  prefect  in  any  of  the  other  French  depart- 
ments. In  the  second  place,  he  exercises,  in  the  absence 
of  a  Parisian  mayor,  all  the  functions  (except  those  relat- 
ing to  police)  that  belong  to  the  office  of  mayor  in  the 
ordinary  municipality.1  His  position  is,  therefore,  that 
of  mayor  and  prefect  combined,  and  his  responsibility  is 
directly  to  the  minister  of  the  interior.2  As  the  virtual 
mayor  of  Paris  he  is  the  apex  of  the  local  framework  of 
civic  administration ;  as  prefect  he  is  the  immediate  local 
agent  of  the  central  authorities.  In  the  former  capacity 
he  is  intrusted  with  the  carrying  out  of  such  resolutions 
as  may  be  passed  by  the  municipal  council  of  Paris  and 
by  the  general  council  of  the  department  of  the  Seine,  — 
for,  as  will  be  noticed  later  on,3  these  bodies  are  some- 
what different  in  composition.  He  prepares  the  municipal 
budget  (except  that  portion  which  has  to  do  with  the 
police  establishment),  and  lays  it  before  the  municipal 
council  at  the  proper  session,  appearing  in  the  council- 
chamber  to  explain  and  defend  the  various  items  con- 
tained in  it.  He  has  general  charge  of  all  civic  and 

1  See  above,  pp.  67  ff. 

a  A  detailed  analysis  of  the  prefect's  powers  may  be  found  in  Eugene  Magn6 
de  la  Londe's  Les  attributions  duprefet  de  la  Seine  (Paris,  1902). 
8  See  below,  p.  108. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  FRENCH  CITIES  97 

departmental  property,  supervising  its  construction  and 
maintenance ;  and  in  all  legal  transactions  he  acts  as  the 
representative  of  the  city  or  of  the  department,  as  the  case 
may  be.  As  all  the  streets  of  Paris  are  included  within 
the  category  of  la  grande  voirie,  he  exercises  supervision 
over  these,  except  in  matters  that  have  to  do  with  the 
regulation  of  traffic, — a  responsibility  which  rests  with  his 
colleague,  the  prefect  of  police.  The  immediate  admin- 
istration of  the  great  public  services  of  the  city  —  the 
water  supply,  the  sewer  system,  and  various  other  civic 
enterprises  of  a  similar  character  —  is  vested  in  his  hands, 
as  well  as  the  general  oversight  of  all  poorhouses,  hospitals, 
and  like  institutions.  He  has  important  functions  in 
connection  with  the  system  of  poor  relief  and  with  that 
of  primary  and  higher  education ; *  and  on  all  matters 
within  his  jurisdiction  he  has  authority  to  publish  orders 
or  decrees  such  as  are  issued  by  the  other  prefects  or  by 
the  mayors.2  In  addition  to  all  this,  he  is  responsible  for 
the  exercise  of  a  host  of  minor  functions,  —  for  the  super- 
vision of  the  etat  civil,  the  preparation  and  revision  of  the 
voters'  lists,  the  oversight  of  many  matters  connected  with 
the  system  of  military  service,  and  so  on.  There  is,  in 
fact,  a  greater  concentration  of  administrative  powers  in 
the  hands  of  the  prefect  of  the  Seine  than  in  those  of 
any  other  local  official  in  France,  or,  indeed,  in  any  other 
country.3 

For   the  efficient   and   satisfactory  performance  of  his  Hisreia- 
various   duties   the  prefect   of   the   Seine  is  not   directly  municipal 
responsible  to  either  of  his  councils ;  he  is  accountable  to  council- 

1  A  full  account  of  the  organization  and  administration  of  these  various  ser- 
vices is  contained  in  Encyclopedic  municipale  de  la  ville  de  Paris.    Statistical 
data  may  be  had  in  the  Annuaire  statistique  de  la  ville  de  Paris  (1907). 

2  G.  Le  Breton,  Du  pouvoir  reglementaire  des  prefets  (Caen,  1900). 

8  See  A.  Lavale"e  on  "  Le  regime  administratif  du  dfipartement  de  la  Seine  et 
de  la  ville  de  Paris,"  in  Bevue  generate  d*  administration,  1900-1901,  passim. 


98  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN   CITIES 

the  central  authorities  alone.  He  must,  however,  be  able 
to  work  in  tolerable  harmony  with  his  councils,  for  with- 
out their  cooperation  the  necessary  funds  for  conducting 
a  considerable  part  of  the  administration  would  not  be 
forthcoming.  Many  of  the  items  in  the  annual  Parisian 
budget  must,  it  is  true,  be  inserted  by  law,  and  hence  are 
not  subject  to  the  control  of  the  council  ;  but  many  others 
are  completely  within  its  jurisdiction,  and  with  this 
factor  the  prefect's  administrative  policy  must  reckon. 
During  the  last  decade  or  more  the  relations  between 
the  prefect  and  the  council  have  sometimes  become  badly 
strained  ;  but,  with  the  central  authorities  behind  him, 
the  prefect  of  the  Seine  has  usually  maintained  his  con- 
trolling hand. 

The  staff  of  To  the  proper  performance  of  his  varied  functions  the 
prefect  brings  the  assistance  of  a  large  staff  at  head- 
quarters, chief  among  the  members  of  which  is  the  secre- 
tary of  the  prefecture,  who  assumes  a  great  share  of  the 
prefect's  responsibilities  with  reference  to  clerical  routine. 
The  remaining  members  of  the  staff  are  grouped  into 
"  services,"  and  these  again  into  bureaus  and  sections.1 
Each  division  has  its  chief  and  usually  its  deputy-chief, 
together  with  its  corps  of  clerical  and  technical  employees. 
All  the  higher  posts  are  filled  by  the  president  of  the 
republic  on  the  recommendation  of  the  minister  of  the 
interior,  the  lower  ones  by  the  prefect  himself,  or  even  by 
his  chief  subordinates.  The  employees  of  the  department 
of  the  Seine  are  selected  almost  without  exception  by  a 
system  of  competitive  examinations,  which  is  most  effi- 
ciently administered  by  a  jury  cPexamen.  The  available 
vacancies  average  in  number  only  about  twenty  per  year  ; 
but  more  than  150  candidates  annually  take  the  examina- 
tions, and  the  president  of  the  examining  board  —  who  is 

i  For  details,  consult  the  Encyclopedic  municipale  de  la  ville  de  Paris,  Vol.  I. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  FRENCH  CITIES  99 

a  professor  in  the  law  faculty  of  the  University  of  Paris  — 
vouches  that  the  successful  competitors  are  an  unusually 
promising  set  of  men.  Positions  in  the  service  of  the  city 
are  much  sought  after  ;  for  the  municipal  staff  is  well  paid, 
and  liberal  pensions  are  given  to  employees  on  retirement 
after  long  terms  of  service. 

In  addition  to  what  may  be  called  the  headquarters  The  govem- 
staff  of  the  prefecture,  which  is  directly  in  charge  of  the  Paris 


great  municipal  services,  there  is  a  local  administrative  dwsementt- 
organization  in  each  of  the  twenty  arrondissements,  or 
wards,  into  which  the  city  is  divided.  Each  division  has 
its  local  headquarters  —  the  mairie  of  the  ward  —  super- 
vised  by  a  mayor,  who  is  an  appointee  of  the  central  gov- 
ernment and  gives  his  services  gratuitously.  Each  mayor 
is  assisted  by  a  staff  of  three  or  five  adjoints,  who  are 
similarly  appointed  and  who  likewise  receive  no  remunera- 
tion. All  these  officials  are  the  immediate  subordinates  of 
the  prefect  of  the  Seine,  intrusted  with  the  duty  of  carry- 
ing out  his  orders  in  the  local  areas.  The  actual  work  is, 
of  course,  not  performed  by  the  mayors  and  adjoints  them- 
selves, but  by  the  permanent  staffs  maintained  at  the  local 
headquarters.1  Each  of  the  twenty  Parisian  mairies  has 
its  secretary,  its  heads  of  bureaus,  and  its  clerical  staff  simi- 
lar to  that  of  the  ordinary  communal  mairie  ;  and  by  these 
officials  the  wTork  of  maintaining  the  etat  civil,  the  prepa- 
ration of  voters'  lists,  the  functions  connected  with  the 
military  system,  and  various  other  tasks  are  performed. 
Connected  with  each  mairie,  moreover,  are  a  number  of 
commissions  presided  over  by  the  mayor  or  by  an  adjoint 
and  composed  of  lay  citizens  appointed  either  by  the  prefect 
or  by  the  minister  of  the  interior.  To  these  local  commis- 

1  Many  interesting  details  concerning  the  work  done  in  the  mairies  may  be 
found  in  H.  Lesage's  Souvenirs  d'un  maire-adjoint  de  Paris,  1880-1895  (Paris 
[1898]). 


100  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

sions  are  given  many  powers  relating  to  poor  relief,  edu- 
cation, the  sanitary  utilities,  and  a  multitude  of  minor 
municipal  services. 

The  system  In  this  way  much  of  the  administrative  work  of  the 
centraHza^  prefect  has  been  decentralized  ;  indeed,  a  large  share  of  the 
tion.  clerical  routine  is  now  performed  at  the  various  mairies  and 

not  at  the  Hotel  de  Ville.  Like  the  headquarters  staff,  the 
personnel  of  the  twenty  mairies  forms  a  part  of  the  municipal 
civil  service  ;  it  is  a  permanent  professional  body,  which  in 
its  work  is  not  influenced  to  any  considerable  extent  by 
changes  in  the  higher  ranks  of  the  administration.  The 
arrondissement  authorities  have,  to  be  sure,  little  or  no  voice 
in  the  shaping  of  general  municipal  policy,  for  their  work 
is  mainly  to  see  that  the  plans  made  at  headquarters  are 
carried  out  in  their  respective  wards;  but  the  system  has 
brought  into  the  service  of  the  municipality  a  great  many 
public-spirited  citizens,  who,  serving  without  remunera- 
tion as  mayor,  ad  joints,  or  members  of  local  commissions, 
give  freely  of  their  time  for  the  city's  advantage.  Since 
the  number  of  such  persons  in  Paris  must  run  well  into 
the  hundreds,  their  part  in  municipal  administration  un- 
doubtedly lends  flexibility  to  the  system  of  metropolitan 
government;1  and,  furthermore,  since  the  arrondissements 
have  no  elective  councils,  the  introduction  of  this  lay  ele- 
ment into  the  personnel  of  local  administration  insures  a 
certain  amount  of  responsiveness  to  popular  feeling. 
The  prefect  The  other  Parisian  prefect,  called  the  prefect  of  police, 
occupies  a  post  that  has  been  in  existence  for  over  a  cen- 
tury.2 He  is  a  colleague,  not  a  subordinate,  of  the  prefect 
of  the  Seine,  is  appointed  by  the  president  of  the  republic 

1  This  point  has  been  very  well  emphasized  in  Albert  Shaw's  Municipal  Gov- 
ernment in  Continental  Europe,  32-35. 

a  E.  Mouneyrat's  La  prefecture  de  police  (Paris,  1906)  presents  a  full  account 
of  the  history,  organization,  and  powers  of  this  prefecture. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  FRENCH  CITIES  101 

on  the  recommendation  of  the  interior  ministry,  and  may 
be  removed  by  the  chief  of  state  at  any  time.  Since  1871 
there  have  been  eleven  prefects  of  police,  the  average  term 
of  service  being  thus  but  slightly  more  than  three  years. 
The  present  incumbent,  however,  M.  Louis  Lepine,  has  been 
continuously  in  office  since  1899,  besides  having  held  the 
post  during  the  years  1893-1897.  There  has  thus  been  no 
change  in  the  headship  of  either  prefecture  for  almost  a 
decade,  and  the  indications  seem  to  point  to  long  tenures 
as  the  rule  for  the  future.  The  office  of  prefect  of  police  is 
one  of  commanding  influence;  its  occupant  receives  a  large 
stipend,  and  the  demands  made  upon  him  are  of  such  a 
nature  as  to  call  for  unusual  administrative  skill. 

The  powers  of  the  prefect  of  police  were  originally  Powers  of 
determined  by  the  law  of  1800,  which  established  the  post; 
but  so  many  modifications  have  been  made  by  subsequent 
laws  and  decrees  that  the  exact  scope  of  his  authority  is 
not  easily  defined.  In  general  he  has  charge  of  that  branch 
of  administrative  jurisdiction  which  the  French  include  in 
.  their  conception  of  the  term  "police."  Police  jurisdic- 
tion in  France,  however,  comprises  not  alone  the  mainte- 
nance of  law  and  order,  but  many  other  functions  only 
indirectly  related  to  this  one, — as,  for  example,  the  super- 
vision of  sanitary  regulations,  the  oversight  of  unhealthy 
or  dangerous  industries,  the  so-called  police  des  mceurs,  and 
many  like  functions  which  in  America  are  not  committed 
to  the  charge  of  local  police  but  to  special  state  authorities. 
The  prefect  of  police  exercises  those  police  powers  which 
in  the  ordinary  communes  are  given  to  the  mayors,  together 
with  the  larger  police  functions  which  in  the  ordinary  de- 
partments go  to  the  regular  prefects.  His  authority  is  not, 
it  may  be  repeated,  subject  to  any  surveillance  on  the  part 
of  the  prefect  of  the  Seine  ;  he  is  responsible  directly  to 
the  minister  of  the  interior.  Under  instructions  which  he 


102  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

may  receive  from  the  ministry,  he  frames  and  promulgates 
arretes  and  ordinances  dealing  not  only  with  matters  per- 
taining to  the  protection  of  life  and  property,  but  with  the 
regulation  of  traffic,  the  abatement  of  nuisances,  the  super- 
vision of  aliens  and  political  suspects,  and  the  guardianship 
of  various  national  interests.  Subject  also  to  the  general 
rules  laid  down  for  his  guidance  by  law  or  ministerial  de- 
cree, he  regulates  everything  connected  with  the  personnel, 
the  pay,  the  promotions,  and  the  discipline  of  the  Paris 
police  force,  and  is  the  executive  head  of  the  system  in  all 
its  branches.  He  is  directly  and  entirely  responsible  for 
every  incident  of  police  administration ;  and  from  his 
headquarters  opposite  the  Palais  de  Justice  he  controls  all 
the  various  bureaus  into  which  the  service  is  organized. 
Difficult  na-  The  position  is  one  of  great  power  and  of  correspondingly 
post.  °  8  great  responsibility,  for  the  efficient  policing  of  Paris  is  no 
easy  task.  Not  only  must  the  prefect  display  qualities  of 
firmness  and  tact  which  nature  does  not  frequently  com- 
bine in  one  individual,  but  he  must  also  be  a  man  upon 
whom  the  national  authorities  can  depend  absolutely;  for, 
in  view  of  the  city's  turbulent  traditions,  any  failure  of  the 
police  system  to  cope  with  emergencies  might  well  be 
looked  upon  with  apprehension.  The  marked  success  of 
M.  Lepine's  police  administration  has  been  due  in  no  small 
degree  to  his  rare  personal  courage,  his  untiring  energy, 
his  ability  as  an  organizer,  and  especially  to  his  skill  in 
combining  the  suaviter  in  modo  with  the  fortiter  in  re, — 
all  qualities  upon  which  the  problems  of  his  office  make 
severe  demands. 
The  munici-  Although  it  is  commonly  said  that  Paris  is  governed  by 

pal  council        ,-,  ,. 

of  Pam.        these  two  prefects,  there  is  also  a  municipal  council  which 
is  not  without  an  important  share  in  the  direction  of  ad- 
ministrative policy.1     This   conseil  municipal  de  Paris  is 
1  H.  Chrfetien,  De  V organisation  du  conseil  municipal  de  Paris  (Paris,  1906). 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  FRENCH  CITIES  103 

composed  of  eighty  members,  who  are  elected  by  popular 
vote  under  a  form  of  suffrage  identical  with  that  which 
exists  in  the  other  cities  of  the  country.  The  methods  of 
compiling  and  revising  the  voters'  lists,  the  machinery  of 
election,  the  system  of  supplementary  polling,  and  all  the 
other  incidents  of  an  electoral  campaign  are  likewise  sub- 
stantially similar  to  those  in  the  other  cities.  The  Parisian 
councillors  are  not,  however,  elected  on  a  general  ticket. 
Each  of  the  twenty  arrondissements  is  divided  into  four  Howor- 
electoral  sections  or  precincts,  and  each  of  these  elects  one  gan 
councillor.  Since,  however,  these  precincts  have  remained 
unchanged  for  the  last  forty  years,  they  are  at  the  present 
time  so  unequal  in  population  and  in  number  of  voters  inequalities 
that  one  councillor  may,  and  frequently  does,  represent  Cn  districts' 
two  or  three  times  as  many  municipal  voters  as  one  of 
his  colleagues.  This  circumstance  has  given  rise  to  so 
much  criticism  that  from  time  to  time  various  schemes 
have  been  submitted  to  the  central  government  looking 
toward  a  rearrangement  of  the  precincts;1  but  none  of 
these  plans  have  thus  far  found  favor.  It  would,  indeed, 
be  difficult  to  effect  a  satisfactory  adjustment  without 
either  changing  the  historic  boundaries  of  the  arrondisse- 
ments or  giving  to  some  wards  a  larger  number  of 
councillors  than  to  others.  Either  of  these  alternatives 
encounters  strong  opposition ;  for  the  bounds  of  the 
precincts  are  traditional,  and  the  principle  of  equal  rep- 
resentation has  likewise  obtained  a  degree  of  sanctity  in 
the  minds  of  many  Parisians. 

The  Paris  councillors  are  elected  for  a  four-year  term,  Term  and 
and  the  elections  are  held  upon  the  same  day  as  those  of 
the  provincial  cities,  with  supplementary  pollings  a  week  lors- 
later,  if  necessary,  —  and  in  many  of  the  precincts  they  are 

1  See  D.  Penard's  Le  probleme  du  mode  d*  election  des  conseillers  munidpaux 
de  Paris  (Paris,  1905). 


104  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

always  required.  No  provision  is  made  by  law  for  the 
payment  of  councillors ;  but  the  council  has  adopted  the 
practice  of  voting  an  annual  sum  to  cover  the  actual  ex- 
penses of  its  members.  In  virtue  of  this  custom  the  coun- 
cillors receive  a  fixed  sum  of  six  thousand  francs  apiece  ; 
and  this  remuneration,  which  is  practically  a  salary,  has  been 
Partisan-  tacitly  approved  by  the  higher  authorities.1  The  electoral 
Selections"  campaigns  are  conducted  on  a  purely  partisan  basis,  and  in 
Paris  national  and  municipal  party  lines  are  rather  closely 
identified.  At  one  period  it  was  possible  for  a  Parisian 
councillor  to  be  at  the  same  time  a  member  of  the  Cham- 
ber of  Deputies,  and  there  were  many  instances  of  this 
dual  membership  ;  but  the  practice  is  no  longer  permitted. 
On  the  whole  the  council  has  been  anti-ministerial,  —  that 
is  to  say,  opposed  to  the  party  or  group  of  parties  whose 
leaders  controlled  the  policy  of  the  nation.  Occasionally, 
indeed,  it  has  been  so  violently  anti-ministerial  that  it  has 
involved  itself  in  open  breaches  with  the  higher  author- 
ities, notably  during  the  period  1900—1904,  when  the 
Nationalists  obtained  the  upper  hand  in  the  municipal 
legislature.2  The  council  is,  in  fact,  apt  to  be  somewhat 
radical  in  its  make-up,  the  socialist  and  labor  elements 
usually  having  a  strong  footing  in  its  ranks,  —  a  circum- 
stance that  has  often  embarrassed  the  two  prefects,  who 
may  be  said  to  reflect  the  more  conservative  spirit  of  the 
central  government.8 

1  In  addition,  the  councillors  have  voted  themselves  an  annual  allowance  of 
three  thousand  francs  each  as  members  of  the  council  of  the  department  of  the 
Seine.     This  practice  both  the  Gourdes  Comptes  and  the  Conseil  d'jtftat  have 
declared  to  be  unauthorized  by  law ;  but  the  Ministry  of  the  Interior  has  con- 
sistently declined,  apparently  for  political  reasons,  to  prevent  the  annual  pay- 
ments from  being  made.     See  Revue  generale  <T administration,  1896,  III.  34  ff.; 
and  JKevue  de  science  et  de  legislation  financiere,  1904,  I.  106  ff. 

2  P.  de  Touche,  Quatre  ans  de  nationalisme  a  V  Hotel  de  Ville,  1900-1904 
(Paris,  1904). 

8  E.  Bourdeau  on  "Le  socialisme  municipal,"  in  Revue  des  Deux-Mondes, 
July,  1900. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  FRENCH  CITIES  105 

With  reference  to  its  general  procedure  and  the  scope  Thecoun- 
of  its  deliberations  the  municipal  council  of  Paris  is  gov-  ^  pro 
erned  by  the  rules  prescribed  for  the  councils  of  the  other 
French  cities.  It  meets  four  times  a  year  in  regular  session; 
but  special  meetings  are  called  whenever  they  are  deemed 
necessary,  and  as  a  matter  of  fact  these  extra  sessions 
occupy  most  of  the  intervals  between  the  statutory  ones. 
Since  1886  the  meetings  have  all  been  open  to  the  public.1 
At  all  sessions,  whether  regular  or  special,  the  two  pre- 
fects have  the  right  to  be  present  and  to  be  heard ;  but  the 
prefect  of  the  Seine  is  not  the  presiding  officer.  At  the 
first  meeting  subsequent  to  the  elections  the  council  chooses, 
by  secret  ballot,  its  own  president,  its  vice-presidents,  one 
or  more  secretaries,  and  a  syndic,  or  general  director  of 
ceremonies.  These  officers  make  up  the  council's  "bu- 
reau," and  this  bureau  has  general  direction  of  all  council 
proceedings. 

On  account  of  its  size  and  unwieldiness  the  Paris  coun-  The  coun- 
cil finds  it  advantageous  to  have  much  of  its  preliminary  tees™1 
work  performed  by  standing  committees,  of  which  there 
are  several,  and  to  which  are  added  from  time  to  time,  as 
occasion  demands,  an  even  larger  number  of  special  com- 
mittees. The  method  of  selecting  the  standing  commit- 
tees is  somewhat  peculiar,  and  very  different  from  that 
ordinarily  pursued  in  the  municipal  councils  of  England 
or  the  United  States.  Immediately  after  the  elections  the 
members  of  the  council  are  divided  by  lot  into  four  equal 
sections,  each  section  remaining  intact  during  the  four 
years  of  the  council's  existence,  and  each  selecting,  by  vote 
of  its  members,  two,  three,  or  four  representatives  to  serve 
on  each  standing  committee  of  the  council.  At  the  pres- 
ent time  there  are  six  of  these  committees,  which  divide 
among  themselves  the  more  important  departments  of 
1  Loi  du  Sjuillet  1886,  in  Bulletin  ties  lots,  1886,  II.  620. 


106 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


Work  of 
these  com- 
mittees. 


civic  administration.1  The  special  committees  are  chosen 
in  a  variety  of  ways,  —  sometimes  by  vote  of  the  whole 
council,  sometimes  by  the  selection  of  representatives 
from  various  standing  committees,  and  often  by  a  com- 
bination of  two  or  more  of  these  committees  themselves.2 
Each  committee,  whether  standing  or  special,  selects  its 
own  chairman.  In  addition  to  its  committees,  the  council 
also  has  representatives  upon  a  considerable  number  of 
mixed  commissions  made  up  of  lay  citizens  or  officials. 

Matters  may  come  before  the  council  either  by  message 
from  one  of  the  prefects  —  usually  the  prefect  of  the  Seine 
—  or  on  proposal  of  some  individual  member.8  In  either 
case  the  question  is  referred  to  the  appropriate  committee 
or  mixed  commission  for  examination  and  report,  and  the 
result  is  transmitted  in  printed  form  to  all  members  of  the 
council  some  time  before  the  regular  session.4  Service  on 
these  various  committees  and  commissions  involves  heavy 
demands  upon  the  time  and  attention  of  the  councillors;5 
it  is  this  fact  especially,  indeed,  that  has  moved  the  higher 
authorities  to  give  their  consent  to  the  liberal  allowance 
voted  to  councillors  each  year  under  color  of  expenses. 

1  Of  these  six  standing  committees  the  First  Committee  (12  members)  deals 
with  finance,  civic  contracts,  municipal  and  public  monopolies ;   the  Second 
Committee  (12  members)  with  police,  fire  protection,  and  parks ;  the  Third  Com- 
mittee (16  members)  with  highways  and  works  affecting  highways ;  the  Fourth 
Committee  (16  members)  with  education  and  fine  arts;  the  Fifth  Committee 
(12  members)  with  poor  relief  and  municipal  pawnshops ;  the  Sixth  Committee 
(12  members)  with  sanitation,  sewerage,  water  supply,  and  navigation  of  the  Seine. 

2  Among  the  special  committees  now  in  existence  are  those  on  tramways, 
gas,  and  loans.     The  budget  is  dealt  with  by  a  committee  of  the  whole  council, 
after  the  English  fashion  ;  but  all  the  standing  committees  become  sub-commit- 
tees of  this  "  committee  of  the  whole." 

8  These  propositions  may  be  found  in  Conseil  municipal  de  Paris  ;  Rapports 
et  documents  (issued  annually  since  1871). 

4  See,  for  example,  A.  Rendu,  Rapport  sur  le  service  des  eaux  ;  conseil  muni- 
cipal de  Paris  (Paris,  1904).  All  the  proceedings  of  the  council  are  printed  in 
the  Bulletin  municipal  officiel  de  la  mile  de  Paris. 

6  Dr.  Chassagne's  Dix-neuf  ans  du  conseil  municipal  elu  de  la  ville  de  Paris, 
1871-1890  (3  vols.,  Paris,  1893),  gives  some  interesting  details  concerning  the 
composition  and  actual  work  of  the  council. 


THE   GOVERNMENT  OF  FRENCH  CITIES  107 

The  influence  of  the  French  committee  is,  however,  by  no  Not  so  im- 
means  so  great  as  that  of  the  standing  committee  of  an  the  work  of 
English  borough  council.  The  Paris  committee  does  not,  Steel  IT*1" 
like  its  English  prototype,  deal  finally  with  any  matter,  how-  England, 
ever  unimportant;  and  its  recommendations  have  no  cer- 
tainty of  acceptance  by  the  council.  From  the  peculiar 
way  in  which  the  committees  are  constituted,  some  of  them 
may,  and  frequently  do,  contain  a  majority  of  councillors 
who  do  not  coincide  in  political  views  with  a  majority  of 
the  council  as  a  whole;  hence  committee  recommenda- 
tions, though  usually  adopted,  are  sometimes  rejected,  a 
step  which  is,  however,  in  no  wise  construed  to  be  an 
expression  of  want  of  confidence  in  the  committee.  Un- 
like the  English  committees,  moreover,  these  Paris  bodies 
do  not  directly  control  any  of  the  municipal  services.  The 
heads  of  departments  take  their  instructions  from  the  pre- 
fects, not  from  the  chairmen  of  council  committees ;  the 
latter  may  at  best  only  make  suggestions  to  the  whole  coun- 
cil, and  the  council,  again,  may  only  in  a  roundabout  way 
bring  pressure  to  bear  upon  the  administration.  The  Paris 
committees  investigate  and  advise ;  they  do  not  control. 

In  a  word,  the  fact  that  the  Paris  municipal  council  does  The  Coun- 
not  elect  the  administrative  officers,  and  does  not  directly 
control  their  policy,  serves  greatly  to  restrict  its  powers  and 
to  make  it  even  less  influential  in  municipal  affairs  than  are 
the  councils  of  the  provincial  cities.  Its  only  important 
legal  function  is  that  of  voting  the  budget,  and  even  here 
its  discretion  is  closely  circumscribed  by  law.  It  has,  to 
be  sure,  certain  powers  with  respect  to  the  acquisition  of 
municipal  property,  the  regulation  of  license  fees  and  mar- 
ket tolls,  the  acceptance  of  bequests  and  gifts,  and  so  on ; 
but  in  every  case  the  concurrence  of  the  prefect  of  the 
Seine  is  essential  to  any  valid  action.  It  is  true  that  the 
resolutions  of  the  council  carry  considerable  weight  even 


108  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

when  they  relate  to  matters  affecting  interests  of  the  city 
that  lie  outside  the  council's  own  sphere  of  jurisdiction, 
and  it  is  also  true  that  the  prefect  of  the  Seine  is  very 
frequently  obliged  to  bend  to  its  will  as  a  matter  of  ex- 
pediency; yet  among  the  legislatures  of  the  world's  great 
cities  the  Paris  council  is  perhaps  the  least  influential  of  all. 
General  The  municipal  council  exists  for  Paris  proper ;  the  depart- 

the  depart-  ment  of  the  Seine,  which  includes  not  only  the  city  but  the 
ment  of  the  district  immediately  surrounding,  has  its  own  general  depart- 
ment council.1  This  council  is  made  up  of  the  members  of 
the  Paris  municipal  council,  with  the  addition  of  twenty-one 
councillors  from  the  two  arrondissements  outside  the  walls. 
As  there  are  so  few  of  these,  however,  the  two  councils  are 
substantially  alike  as  regards  their  personnel ;  but  they  meet 
separately,  enjoy  separate  powers,  and  have  somewhat  dif- 
ferent precedures.  The  general  council  of  the  department 
of  the  Seine  has  about  the  same  powers  as  are  possessed  by 
the  conseils  gdn&raux  of  the  other  French  departments. 
Plans  of  During  the  last  thirty  years  or  more  a  good  many  Pa- 

ta^reorgan-  risian  voters  have  been  clamoring  for  a  rearrangement  of 
ization.  metropolitan  organization.  Various  schemes  have  been 
brought  forward,  most  of  them  making  provision  for  a 
central  mairie,  with  a  mayor  of  Paris  to  be  elected  by  the 
council  and  invested  with  many  of  the  powers  now  pos- 
sessed by  the  two  prefects;2  but  the  central  authorities  ap- 
pear to  display  no  signs  of  weakening  in  their  fixed  belief 
that  the  capital  should  continue  to  be  dealt  with  as  a 
special  unit  of  local  administration. 


1  H.  Lanfant,  Le  conseil  general  de  la  Seine,  ses  origines  et  attributions 
(Paris,  1903). 

2  Some  of  these  schemes  may  be  found  in  S.  Lacroix's  Rapport  sur  V  orga- 
nisation municipale  de  la  ville  de  Paris  (Paris,  1880)  ;  G.  Villain's  Paris  et  la 
mairie    centrale;    etude    de  centralisation  administrative   (Paris,   1884)  ;  A. 
Combarieu's  paper  on  "La  mairie  centrale  de  Paris,"  in  Revue  politique  et 
parlementaire,  July  10,  1897  ;  and  J.  Delaitre's  La  municipalite  parisienne  et 
les  projets  de  reforme  (Paris,  1902). 


CHAPTER   II 

THE   GOVERNMENT    OF   PRUSSIAN   CITIES 

THE  concentration  of  population  in  cities,  and  more  par-  Growth  of 
ticularly  in  the  larger  cities,  has  been  marked  with  singular  Citie™an 
clearness  throughout  that  area  of  territory  which  now 
forms  the  German  Empire.  During  the  last  three  or  four 
decades  especially,  this  drift  toward  the  urban  centres  has 
assumed  such  unprecedented  proportions  that  it  has  con- 
tributed in  no  small  degree  to  the  difficulty  which  munici- 
pal organs  have  encountered  in  dealing  with  the  various 
problems  of  city  administration.  A  century  ago  the  Ger- 
man states  comprised  within  their  boundaries  populations 
that  were  chiefly  agricultural  in  occupation ;  indeed,  with 
the  exception  of  important  seaports,  like  Hamburg,  Bre- 
men, and  Liibeck,  and  of  such  inland  cities  as  had  grown  to 
importance  simply  because  they  were  political  capitals, 
there  were  very  few  urban  communities  of  any  consider- 
able size.  This  fact  is  to  be  attributed  mainly  to  the 
industrial  backwardness  and  general  lack  of  economic  ag- 
gressiveness that  had  thus  far  characterized  the  German 
people ;  but  the  free  movement  of  the  population  was  still 
further  hampered  by  the  heavy  shackles  which  the  gov- 
erning authorities  put  upon  both  industry  and  trade.  In  influence  of 
1816,  despite  the  extensive  reforms  of  the  Stein-Harden-  reforms, 
berg  period,  less  than  two  per  cent  of  the  population 
of  Prussia  was  to  be  found  in  the  cities  of  over  100,000 
inhabitants  ;*  and  forty  years  later  this  percentage  had 

1  Elaborate  statistics  of  urban  and  rural  population  in  Prussia  during  the 
period  1816-1864  may  be  found  in  H.  Schwabe's  paper,  "Ueber  die  Quellen  ftir 
das  Wachstum  der  grossen  Stadte  im  preussischen  Staate,"  in  Berliner  Stadt- 
und  Gemeinde-Kalender  und  statistisches  Jahrbuch  fur  1867  (Berlin,  1867). 

109 


110  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

little  more  than  doubled,  an  evidence  that  Prussia  was 
sharing    to   but   slight    extent    in    that    great   movement 
which  was  at  this  time  so  completely  transforming  the 
economic,  social,  and  political  organization  of  England.1 
Rapidity  of       During  this  period  the  German  cities  and  towns  suffered 
1871^       °  somewhat  from  the  exodus  of  many  citizens  to  the  United 
States ;  but  the  main  cause  of  tardy  urban  growth  is  ex- 
plained chiefly  by  the  fact  that  not  until  after  1867-1871 
did  Germany  come  to  her  own  in  the  matter  of  industrial 
and  commercial  expansion.     The  successful  wars  with  Aus- 
tria and  France  marked  the  beginning  of  an  industrial  revival 
which  sent  these  economic  interests  of  the  new  German 
Empire  forging  ahead  at  a  quick  pace,  and  which  was 
accompanied  not  only  by  a  vigorous  increase  in  national 
population,  but  by  a  decline  in  the  emigration  of  Germans 
to  other  countries.     More  particularly  did  the  new  order  of 
things  reflect  itself  in  the  rapid  growth  of  German  cities, 
caused  largely  by  a  hegira  of  the  rural  population  into  the 
new  industrial  and  trading  centres,  a  movement  which  has 
continued  for  nearly  forty  years  with  no  apparent  diminu- 
tion in   strength.     Of  the  slightly  more  than    41,000,000 
people  with  whom  the  German  Empire  began  its  history  in 
1871,  only  twenty-six  per  cent  were  resident  in  cities  and 
strength  of  towns  of  more  than  5000  population.     In  1890  this  percent- 
lation  aiuhe  aSe  na(i  risen  to  thirty-six ;  and  at  the  last  census  (1905) 
present  day.  jt  na(j  reached  more  than  forty-five  per  cent  of  the  whole.2 
The  strength  and  significance  of  this  movement  are  not 

1  In  1816  the  population  of  Prussia  classified  as  rural  formed  about  73  per 
cent  of  the  whole  ;  in  1864  it  had  fallen  to  only  69  per  cent.     The  rural  popula- 
tion of  England  and  Wales  in  1811  formed  more  than  80  per  cent  of  the  whole, 
but  in  1861    it  had  dropped  to  less  than  45  per  cent.     On  this  point  see 
A.  F.  Weber's  Growth  of  Cities  in  the  Nineteenth  Century  (New  York,  1899), 
especially  ch.  ii. 

2  Statistics  of  German  city  growth  since  1871  may  be  conveniently  found  in 
the  Statistisches  Jahrbuch  deutscher  Stadte  (published  annually). 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  PRUSSIAN  CITIES 


111 


United 

States. 


readily  overestimated.  The  growth  of  American  cities  has  Compara- 
been  so  rapid  during  the  same  period  that  one  is  apt  to 
regard  the  phenomenon  of  urban  expansion  as  peculiar  to 
the  New  World  ;  but  a  comparison  of  German  and  Amer- 
lean  cities  in  point  of  relative  swiftness  of  growth  will 
show  that  in  almost  every  case  the  rate  of  increase  has 
been  greater  in  the  former  than  in  the  latter.1  This  fact 
is  significant  ;  for  it  is  not  infrequently  urged  that  the 
failure  of  many  American  cities  to  cope  properly  with 
their  municipal  problems  has  been  due  in  part  to  their 
phenomenal  expansion.  German  cities,  however,  have  not 
found  steady  increase  of  size  an  insuperable  obstacle  to 
efficient  municipal  administration. 

1  The  following  table  shows  in  round  numbers  the  increase  in  population  of 
some  typical  German  and  American  cities  during  the  period  1890-1905  :  — 


CITY 

1890 

1905 

PERCENTAGES 

Hamburg 
Boston 

569,000 
448,000 

800,000 
595,000 

40% 
32% 

Munich 
Baltimore 

349,000 
434,000 

538,000 
546,000 

54% 
25% 

Leipsic 
Buffalo 

335,000 
255,000 

502,000 
376,000 

49% 

47% 

Dresden 
New  Orleans 

276,000 
242,000 

514,000 
399,000 

80% 
65% 

Hanover 
Milwaukee 

163,000 
204,000 

250,000 
312,000 

53% 
52% 

Cologne 
Cincinnati 

281,000 
296,000 

428,000 
343,000 

52% 
15% 

Breslau 
Cleveland 

335,000 
261,000 

470,000 
437,000 

40% 
67% 

Frankfort 
Pittsburg 

180,000 
238,000 

334,000 
364,000 

80% 
53% 

These  figures  are  drawn  from  the  Statistisches  Jahrbuch  deutscher  Stddte 
(1906),  and  from  Bureau  of  the  Census;  Statistics  of  Cities  having  a  Population 
of  over  30,000  (1907). 


112  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

Special  na-         Not  only  have  the  cities  of  the  German  Empire  been 
problems   *  growing  more  rapidly  during  the  last  ten  or  twenty  years 


created  by     faan  the  cit  jes  of  tjie  United  States,  but  they  have  found 

rapid  urbau 

expansion  iu  the  problems  resulting  from  rapid  growth  much  more  be- 
wildering. In  America  suburban  development  has  not,  as 
a  rule,  involved  any  rebuilding  of  the  older  parts  of  the 
city  ;  but  in  Germany  the  municipal  authorities  have  usu- 
ally found  it  necessary  to  create  a  modern  city  out  of  a 
grimy  mediaeval  town.  They  have  had  to  transform  the 
narrow  streets  and  byways  of  the  old  towns  into  the  main 
highways  of  large  cities,  —  an  expensive  sort  of  reconstruc- 
tion too  well  known  to  require  emphasis.  To  the  proper 
solution  of  their  greater  problems,  moreover,  the  German 
cities  have  been  able  to  bring  much  more  slender  resources 
in  the  way  of  annual  revenues  and  general  borrowing 
powers.  The  only  important  advantage  which  they  have 
had  over  American  cities  has  lain  in  the  comparative 
homogeneity  of  their  populations  ;  for,  unlike  the  munici- 
pal authorities  of  the  United  States,  the  German  city 
governments  have  to  deal  with  municipal  electorates  that 
are  almost  wholly  drawn  from  the  ranks  of  the  native- 
born. 

The  govern-  Municipal  government  in  the  German  Empire  lies  within 
^fte  sPnere  of  state  jurisdiction  ;  the  imperial  constitution, 


notauni-      \fae  the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  makes  no  pro- 

form 

system.         vision   regarding   the    structure    of    local    administration. 

Each  kingdom,  dukedom,  or  principality  regulates  its  own 
plan  of  municipal  rule  in  its  own  way  ;  hence  there  is  no 
uniform  system  for  the  whole  of  Germany,  as  there  is  for 
the  whole  of  England  or  for  the  whole  of  France.  At  the 
same  time  there  is  a  much  closer  approach  to  a  single  type 
of  city  government  in  Germany  than  there  is  in  the  United 
States,  a  circumstance  due  partly  to  the  much  smaller 
number  of  state  jurisdictions,  but  more  particularly  to  the 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  PRUSSIAN  CITIES  113 

dominating  influence  of  Prussia  among  her  imperial  con- 
federates. Out  of  the  twenty-five  states  in  the  empire, 
Prussia  has  more  than  three-fifths  of  the  total  population  ;  The  Prus- 
and,  furthermore,  by  her  example  she  exerts  an  influence  Tfairtype. 
upon  the  smaller  states  which  is  more  than  proportionate 
to  her  numerical  preponderance.  Not  only  does  her  mu- 
nicipal policy  serve  much  more  than  a  majority  of  the  total 
urban  population  of  the  empire,  but  she  has  to  a  marked 
degree  stamped  her  principles  of  local  government  upon 
most  of  the  other  German  states.  The  Prussian  system 
may,  therefore,  very  properly  be  taken  as  the  German 
type  ;  but  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  in  all  the  other 
states  there  are  some  important  deviations  from  the  model. 
Indeed,  the  system  is  not  absolutely  uniform  throughout 
Prussian  territory  itself  ;  but  the  variations  are,  in  the 
main,  not  of  sufficient  importance  to  be  mentioned  in  any 
general  survey. 

In  outlining  the  evolution  of  the  Prussian  system  of  Evolution 
city  government  it  is  hardly  necessary  to  go  farther  back 
than  to  the  early  years  of  the  nineteenth  century,  for  it 
was  not  until  the  period  of  the  Stein-Hardenberg  reforms 
that  Prussian  cities  received  their  first  substantial  measure 
of  self-government.1  Before  the  famous  decree  of  1808  was 
issued  the  officials  of  administration  in  all  the  cities  of  the 
kingdom  had  either  been  appointed  by  the  central  author-  cuygovem- 


ities  or  been  selected  by  some  process  of  cooptation,  the  ™  ° 


masses  of  the  citizens  having  in  either  case  little  or  no  centurv- 
voice  in  the  selection  of  their  own  local  administrators  or 
in  the    direction    of   local    policy.      During   the    reign    of 
Frederick   the   Great,   for    example,   it    was    common   to 


1  See  Ernst  Meier,  Die  Reform  der  Verwaltungsorganisation  unter  Stein 
und  Hardenberg  (Leipsic,  1881)  ;  Max  Lehmann,  Freiherr  von  Stein  (3  vols.,  Ber- 
lin, 1902-1905)  ;  and  J.  R.  Seeley,  The  Life  and  Times  of  Stein  (2  vols.,  Cam- 
bridge, 1878),  especially  II.  223-247. 


114 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


Decree 
of  1808. 


Reforms 
effected  by 
it 


bestow  municipal  posts  upon  worn-out  military  officers 
in  order  that  the  state  exchequer  might  not  have  to  bear 
the  burden  of  pensioning  them.  The  inevitable  conse- 
quence of  this  system  was  that  the  ordinary  municipal 
services  were  badly  neglected  and  the  larger  part  of  the 
local  revenues  went  to  the  maintenance  of  sinecure  posts.1 
Indeed,  the  condition  of  affairs  was  if  anything  worse  than 
that  disclosed  in  England  by  the  investigations  which  pre- 
ceded the  act  of  1835.2 

By  the  reforms  of  1808,  however,  the  absolute  power 
of  the  state  in  local  affairs  was  broken  and  the  right  of 
citizenship  was  extended  to  all  who  owned  land  or  pursued 
any  trade  within  the  municipal  limits,  a  multitude  of  local 
privileges  were  swept  away,  and  the  barriers  to  local  prog- 
ress were  almost  entirely  broken  down.  The  reforms  also 
secured  the  establishment,  in  each  Prussian  city,  of  a  frame- 
work of  municipal  government  substantially  similar  to  that 
which  exists  at  the  present  day ;  and  they  gave  to  the  new 
organs  of  local  administration  power  to  raise  and  expend 
local  taxes,  to  issue  municipal  ordinances,  to  control  civic 
property,  and  in  general  to  make  such  provision  for  local 
public  services  as  might  be  found  desirable.3 

The  decree  of  1808  applied  to  all  the  territory  which  was 

1  There  is  a  plentitude  of  literature  relating  to  the  evolution  of  the  Prussian 
municipal  system  both  before  and  after  1808,  including  G.  Waitz's  Deutsche 
Verfassungsgeschichte  (8  vols.,  Kiel,  1844-1861),  especially  II.  374  ff.  ;  K.  D. 
Hullman's  Das   Stadtwesen  des  Mittelalters  (4  vols.,  Bonn,  '1826-1829)  ;  A. 
Heusler's  Der  Ursprung  der  deutschen  Stadtverfassung  (Weimar,  1872)  ;  J.  E. 
Kuntze's  Untersuchungen  iiber  den  Ursprung  der  deutschen   Stadtverfassung 
(Leipsic,  1895) ;  Georg  von  Below's  Das  dltere  deutschc  Stddtewesen  (Bielefeld, 
1898)  ;  and  Karl  Hegel's  Die  Entstehung  des  deutschen  Stddtewesens  (Leipsic, 
1898).      A  very  serviceable  short  survey  may  be  found  in  Hugo  Preuss's 
Die  Entwicklung  des  deutschen  Stddtewesens  (Leipsic,  1906),  or  in  G.  von 
Below's  article  on  "Die  Entstehung  der  deutschen  Stadtverfassung,"  in  the 
Historische  Zeitschrift,  Vols.  XXIL-XXIII.  passim. 

2  See  below,  pp.  215-218. 

8  "  Stadteordnung  vom  19.  November  1808,"  in  Gesetz-Sammlung  fur  1808, 
pp.  324  ff. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  PRUSSIAN  CITIES  115 

at  that  date  comprised  within  the  kingdom  of  Prussia;  Extension oi 
but  to  the  new  tracts  received  in  1815  as  a  result  of  the  to^ew  e' 
arrangements  made  at  the  Congress  of  Vienna  the  provi-  territones- 
sions  of  the  decree  were  not  at  once  extended.  Some  of 
the  cities  in  this  newly  added  territory  retained  their  old 
municipal  organization.  Others  had,  even  before  their 
annexation  to  Prussia,  remodelled  their  systems  of  mu- 
nicipal administration  according  to  the  general  plan  laid 
down  for  the  cities  of  France  by  Napoleon  in  1800 ;  and 
this  method  they  were  for  the  time  being  allowed  to  con- 
tinue. In  1831,  however,  all  these  municipalities  were 
brought  more  or  less  into  line  with  the  system  provided  for 
the  other  Prussian  cities  by  the  arrangements  of  1808  ;  and 
some  time  later  the  cities  of  Westphalia,  Posen,  and  the 
Rhine  Province  were  dealt  with  in  somewhat  the  same 
way.1 

By  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century  there  was  thus  Law  of  i860, 
throughout  Prussia  a  substantial  approach  to  uniformity 
in  city  administration.  The  smaller  urban  and  rural 
areas  (Gemeinden)  were  still  under  a  different  system; 
but  the  opinion  seems  to  have  gained  ground  that  all 
should  be  administered  alike,  for  in  1850,  immediately 
after  the  establishment  of  the  first  Prussian  parliament, 
an  attempt  was  made  to  provide,  by  a  comprehensive 
enactment,  a  uniform  plan  of  government  for  all  local 
units,  urban  and  rural.2  The  lapse  of  a  few  months,  its  chief  de- 
however,  served  to  demonstrate  the  impracticability  of  ad- 
ministering the  affairs  of  large  cities  and  small  villages 
in  the  same  way,  and  the  law  of  1850  was  accordingly 
suspended.  The  Prussian  authorities  then  turned  their 
attention  to  the  drafting  of  a  new  code  for  the  cities 

1  Westphalia  in  1835,  Posen  in  1841,  and  the  Rhine  Province  in  1845.     See 
H.  Preuss,  Die  Entwicklung  des  deutschen  Stadtewesens,  ch.  v. 

3  "  Stadteordnung  vora  11.  Marz  1860,"  in  Gesetz-Sammlung  fur  1850,  pp.  9  ff. 


116 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


City  govern- 
ment act  of 
1853. 


Relation  of 
the  code  of 
1853  to  the 
decree  of 
1808. 


alone,  and  their  efforts  culminated  in  the   City  Govern- 
ment Act  (Stadte-Ordnung)  of  May  30,  1853.1 

The  act  of  1853  originally  applied  to  only  the  six  east- 
ern provinces  of  Prussia  2 ;  but  with  some  variations  it  has 
from  time  to  time  since  then  been  extended  to  practically 
all  the  other  territories  comprised  within  the  kingdom.3 
Though  following  in  general  the  lines  laid  down  in  1808, 
it  contained  several  important  new  features,  notably  the 
"  three-class  system "  of  voting  and  the  substitution  of 
open  for  secret  balloting.  So  far  as  its  legal  basis  is  con- 
cerned, the  municipal  system  of  Prussia  to-day  rests  upon 
the  code  of  1853 ;  but  in  its  broader  outlines  it  goes  back 

1  The  code  of  1853  may  be  found  in  Gesetz-Sammlung  fur  1853,  pp.  261  ff. 
In  its  original  form  it  is  also  published  in  the  appendix  to  A.  W.  Jebens's  Die 
Stadtverordneten  (Berlin,   1905)  ;  but  the  amendments  since  1853  have  been 
very  numerous.    These  amendments  are  given  in  the  various  standard  commen- 
taries on  the  code,  of  which  the  best  and  most  recent  are  Walter  Ledermanu's 
Die  Stadteordnung  .  .  .  nebst  ihren  gesetzlichen  Ergdnzungen  (Berlin,  1902)  ; 
O.  Oertel's  Die  Stadteordnung  fur  die  seeks  ostlichen  Provinzen  der  preussischen 
Monarchic  (Liegnitz,  1905) ;  and  R.  Zelle's  Die  Stadteordnung  von  1853  in 
Hirer  heutigen  Gestalt  (3d  ed.,  Berlin,  1893).    A  convenient  small  handbook 
is  Bruno  Schulze's  revision  of  Plagge's  Die  Stadteordnung  .  .  .  zum  praktischen 
Gebrauch  ausfuhrlich  erlautert  (Berlin,  1901). 

2  These  were  East  and  West  Prussia,  Prussian  Saxony,  Brandenburg,  Pome- 
rania,  Silesia,  and  Posen.     New  Pomerania  and  the  Island  of  Riigen  were 
exempted  from  the  provisions  of  the  law,  but  were  dealt  with  in  a  separate 
enactment  ("Gesetz  betreffend  die  Verfassung  und  Verwaltung  der  Stadte  in 
Neupommern  und  Riigen  vom  31.  Mai  1853,"  in  Gesetz-Sammlung  fur  1853, 
pp.  291  ff.). 

8  The  system  was  applied  to  Westphalia  in  1856  (see  Stadteordnung  der 
Provinz  Westfalen  vom  19.  Marz  1856,  Berlin,  1897),  and  in  the  same  year  to 
the  cities  of  the  Rhine  Province ;  but  in  the  latter  case  there  were  some  important 
deviations  from  the  general  lines  of  the  code  (Stadteordnung  der  Sheinprovinz 
vom  15.  Mai  1856,  Berlin,  1897).  To  the  provinces  of  Schleswig-Holstein,  on 
the  contrary,  it  was  applied  without  much  change  (Stadteordnung  der  Provinz 
Schleswig-Holstein  vom  14.  April  1869,  Berlin,  1888).  Extensions  in  much 
altered  form  were  made  to  Frankfort-on-the-Main  in  1867,  to  the  Duchy  of 
Lauenburg  in  1870,  and  to  Hanover  in  1858 ;  but  in  the  last  case  less  change  was 
made,  for  Hanover  had  already,  before  it  became  a  part  of  Prussia,  established 
a  system  of  city  government  which  in  its  main  lines  followed  to  some  extent 
the  Prussian  model  (Hannoversche  Stadteordnung  vom  24.  Juni  1858,  Berlin, 
1887). 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  PRUSSIAN  CITIES  117 

to  the  enactments  of  1808,  its  true  sponsor  being  Baron 
von  Stein.  Since  the  code  of  1853  was  framed  Prussian 
cities  have  expanded  so  much  that  their  problems  have 
naturally  necessitated  numerous  amendments  to  the  gen- 
eral law ;  but  these  changes  have  for  the  most  part  been 
concerned  with  matters  of  slight  importance.  The  general 
framework  of  Prussian  city  administration  has  remained 
almost  unaltered  for  a  full  century. 

The  various  smaller  German  states  have  their  own  Municipal 
municipal  codes,  adopted  and  revised  at  different  times,1  ^^  Qer.  e 
and  naturally  varying  a  good  deal  in  details  as  well  as  in  man  states- 
some  very  important  features.  In  general,  however,  there 
has  been  a  tendency,  in  the  periodical  revisions,  to  ap- 
proach more  closely  to  the  Prussian  type,  even  though 
there  still  exists  a  difference  in  nomenclature  which  is 
very  apt  to  be  confusing.  Not  one  of  the  smaller  states, 
however,  has  adopted  the  Prussian  three-class  system,  and 
none  seems  at  all  likely  to  do  so,  though  practically  all 
of  them  have  imposed  limitations  upon  the  suffrage,  usu- 
ally in  the  form  of  a  tax-paying  qualification.  In  the 
imperial  territory  of  Alsace-Lorraine  the  cities  have,  with 
certain  modifications  effected  by  territorial  statutes,  been 
permitted  to  retain  their  French  system  of  administration 
by  a  mayor,  adjoints,  and  communal  council. 

The  Prussian  City  Government  Act  of  1853  applies  to  Scope  of  the 
those   units   only  which   are  known  as  Stadte ;   and  the  m™nTcipai 
distinction  between  the  city   (Stadt)  and   the  rural  area  code- 
(Gemeinde)  is  not  based  on  differences  in  population,  but 
on  a  legal  principle  which  has  its  roots  back  in  the  pre- 
vious century.    Originally,  no  doubt,  the  term  "  Stadt"  was 

1  Bavaria's  in  I860,  Saxony's  in  1873,  Baden's  in  1874.  For  details  concern- 
ing the  municipal  systems  of  these  states,  see  "  Verfassung  und  Verwaltungs- 
organisation  der  Stadte:  Bayern,  Sachsen,  Wurtemberg  und  Baden,"  in 
Schriften  des  Vereinsfur  Socialpolitik  (Leipsic,  1905-1908),  Vol.  CXX. 


118  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

applied  to  those  settlements  only  which  had  considerable 
populations,  and  the  term  "  Landgemeinde  "  to  sparsely  set- 
tled areas  only ;  but  this  distinction  has  been  so  far  lost 
sight  of  that  one  now  finds  many  Stadte  with  only  a  few 
hundred  inhabitants  and  many  Gemeinden  which  have 
grown  to  be  populous  centres  of  from  ten  to  fifty  thou- 
sand. The  Gemeinde,  no  matter  what  its  population 
may  be,  is  subject  to  an  entirely  different  legal  regimen 
from  the  Stadt,  and  has  its  own  special  framework  of 
administration.1 

The  municipal  code  of  1853  applied  to  all  inhabited 
places  (Ortschaften)  to  which  the  laws  of  1808  and  1831 
had  been  extended ;  that  is,  to  all  such  places  as  had  at 
any  time  obtained  the  right  to  rank  as  cities  no  matter 
what  their  importance  or  populousness.  Provision  was 
also  made  that  other  places  might,  by  royal  decree,  be 
ranked  as  cities  and  thus  brought  within  the  scope  of  the 
code,  a  thing  which  has  frequently  been  done.  Since, 
however,  there  is  no  fixed  rule  whereby  the  royal  author- 
ities must  be  guided,  the  rank  is  now,  as  a  matter  of 
practice,  accorded  to  larger  urban  communities  only.  At 
the  present  time  there  are  over  twelve  hundred  cities  in 
the  Prussian  monarchy,  ranging,  like  the  French  com- 
munes and  the  English  boroughs,  from  hamlets  of  a  few 
hundred  people  to  Berlin  with  over  two  millions.  All 
these  cities  are  governed  in  substantially  the  same  way. 
Change  in  Not  only  has  the  rapid  growth  in  Prussian  population 
as  a  whole  added  largely  to  the  number  of  cities,  but  it 
has  also  necessitated  many  changes  in  the  boundaries  of 
existing  municipal  areas.  For  such  changes  the  code 
makes  explicit  provision  by  arranging  that,  after  the  con- 
sent of  the  municipalities  affected  has  been  gained,  appli- 

1  The  administration  of  the  rural  communities  is  provided  for  in  the  "  Landge- 
meindeordnung  vom  3.  Juli  1891,"  in  Gesetz-Sammlung  fur  1891,  pp.  233  ff. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  PRUSSIAN  CITIES  119 

cations  may  be  made  by  interested  parties  or  officials  to 
the  higher  local  authorities,  usually  to  the  administrators 
of  the  province.  In  no  case  may  civic  boundaries  be 
altered  without  the  approval  of  the  minister  of  the 
interior  (Minister  des  Innern),  and  in  some  cases  the  con- 
sent of  the  king  must  also  be  had.  The  detailed  regula-  Procedure, 
tions  relating  to  this  matter  are  elaborate  and  somewhat 
perplexing  ;  but  in  general  it  may  be  said  that  all  questions 
relating  to  the  fixing  of  city  boundaries,  the  annexation 
of  suburbs,  and  the  division  of  municipalities  are  deter- 
mined in  the  first  instance  by  the  localities  concerned,  with 
the  concurrence  of  the  district  or  provincial  authorities 
and  with  a  right  of  appeal  to  the  royal  government  at 
Berlin.1 

The  Prussian  city  is  a  public  corporation,  with  all  the  The  city  as 
rights  and  privileges    ordinarily  appertaining  to    such  a  tion.rpc 
body.     It   has,   for   instance,  in    its   corporate    name   and 
through  its  chief  executive  officials,  the  right  to  sue  and  to 
be  sued,  to  hold  property,  to  make  contracts,  and  so  on ; 
but  it  has  in  addition  a  considerable  range  of  powers  not 
derived  from  any  statutory  enactment,  for  the  German 
states  are  not  accustomed  to  specify  with  any  attempt  at 
exactness  the  jurisdiction  which  a   city  corporation  may 
exercise.     The   code   of  1853  merely  empowers   the  local  Sources  of 
authorities  to  do  whatever  they  may  deem   necessary  or  powers, 
advisable  in  the  interests  of  the  city,  provided  always  that 
their  action  shall  not  be  contrary  to  any  law  of  the  land, 
and  provided  usually  that  the  assent   of  some  higher  au- 
thority shall  be  obtained.     Indeed,  this  practice  of  making 
a  general  grant  of  powers  to  the  cities  and  then  curtailing 
their  jurisdiction  at  various  points  whenever  occasion  seems 
to  demand,  is  one  of  the   most  salient  characteristics  of 
Prussian  municipal  policy.     One  might  almost  say  that, 

1  These  rules  are  summarized  in  Ledermann's  Die  Stadteordnung,  10-17. 


120 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


civic  au- 


General 


whereas  in  the  United  States  a  city  may  do  only  what  it 
is  expressly  or  tacitly  empowered  to  do  by  common  law 
or  by  statute,  in  Prussia,  on  the  other  hand,  a  city  may 
do  anything  which  it  is  not  prohibited  from  doing  either 
German  and  by  law  or  by  veto  of  the  higher  powers.1  There  is  thus 
an  important  difference  between  the  two  countries  in  what 
mav  ^g  termed  the  theory  of  civic  powers,  —  a  difference 
in  favor  of  the  Prussian  cities,  for  the  plan  of  making 
broad  grants  of  authority  removes  from  them  the  necessity 
for  that  too  frequent  application  to  the  state  legislatures 
which  American  cities  find  themselves  compelled  to  make. 
It  is,  of  course,  true  that  specific  jurisdiction  of  a  man- 
datory sort  is  sometimes  conferred  upon  the  cities  by  the 
national  authorities,  —  as,  for  example,  in  the  matter  of 
education  or  the  protection  of  the  public  health  ;  but  the 
number  of  powers  conferred  in  this  way  is  not  large. 

Surveying  its  powers  as  a  whole,  one  finds  that  the 
Prussian  city  government  is  the  local  educational  authority, 
providing  for  the  establishment  and  maintenance  of  ele- 
mentary schools,  as  well  as  for  the  conduct  of  such  sec- 
ondary and  technical  institutions  as  may  be  deemed 
necessary,  the  cost  being  borne  to  some  extent  by  the 
central  government,  which  rigidly  exercises  its  right  of 
supervision  and  inspection  over  the  whole  educational  sys- 
tem. The  Prussian  city  is  also  the  local  poor-relief  area, 
the  civic  authorities  having  full  charge,  through  officials 
whom  they  appoint,  of  a  very  comprehensive  plan  of 
municipal  alms-giving.  The  city  government  is  likewise 
the  local  sanitary  authority,  having  wide  powers  with  refer- 
ence to  the  provision  of  a  sewerage  system,  the  elaboration 

1  The  point  has  been  very  well  stated  by  Dr.  Albert  Shaw  in  his  Municipal 
Government  in  Continental  Europe  (p.  323)  :  "There  are,  in  the  German  con- 
ception of  city  government,  no  limits  whatever  to  municipal  functions.  It  is 
the  business  of  the  municipality  to  promote  in  every  feasible  way  its  own 
welfare." 


siancity. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  PRUSSIAN   CITIES  121 

of  all  measures  (other  than  purely  police  regulations)  neces- 
sary for  the  protection  of  the  public  health,  the  erection  and 
maintenance  of  hospitals,  and  the  inspection  of  foodstuffs. 
It  is  permitted,  either  directly  or  through  the  agency  of 
private  corporations,  to  provide  the  usual  public  services, 
such  as  water,  gas,  electricity,  and  tramways  ;  but  in  the 
exercise  of  these  powers  it  is,  as  will  be  seen  later,  very 
closely  circumscribed  by  national  laws  and  by  the  rights 
of  supervision  possessed  by  the  Ministry  of  the  Interior. 
The  city  government  controls  the  fire-protection  system, 
but  upon  its  management  of  the  local  police  there  are 
everywhere  strict  limitations.  Finally,  the  Prussian  city  Broad  scope 
has  been  permitted  to  undertake  many  functions  which  in  ties.8 
American  municipalities  are  jealously  reserved  to  private 
enterprise,  —  the  maintenance  of  municipal  savings-banks, 
for  example,  and  of  municipal  pawn-shops,  employment- 
offices,  theatres,  and  concert-halls  ;  the  erection  of  mu- 
nicipal tenement-houses  ;  the  establishment  of  systems  of 
municipal  fire-insurance.  The  Prussian  cities  have,  indeed, 
a  much  wider  scope  for  their  activities  than  that  given 
to  most  cities  in  the  United  States,  —  a  circumstance 
due  in  large  measure  to  the  fact  that  in  Prussia  civic 
authority  rests  upon  a  broad  grant,  whereas  in  America 
it  must  almost  invariably  be  obtained  piecemeal,  each 
specific  power  being  sought  and  considered  upon  its  in- 
dividual merits,  and  being  obtained  or  refused  with 
reference,  too  often,  to  its  bearing  upon  private  interests 
concerned. 

The  vesting  of  comprehensive  powers  in  the  hands  of  Restrictions 
the  Prussian  municipal  corporations  is  seriously  restricted 


by  the  rigid  control  which  the  central  government  exercises  municiPal 

powers. 

over  all  the  local  authorities  of  the  kingdom.  This  con- 
trol and  supervision  are  exerted  through  the  medium 
of  an  elaborate  administrative  system,  at  the  head  of  which 


122  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

The  system  is  the  minister  of  the  interior,  a  member  of  the  Prussian 
pervisionU~  national  cabinet,  appointed  by  and  responsible  to  the  king. 
Unlike  the  minister  of  the  interior  in  France,  however,  or 
the  president  of  the  Local  Government  Board  in  England, 
this  officer  is  not  directly  amenable  to  the  national  parlia- 
ment. He  must,  it  is  true,  be  able  to  secure  some  measure 
of  support  from  the  latter,  if  he  would  prevent  his  useful- 
ness to  the  national  administration  from  being  very  seri- 
ously impaired  ;  but  he  does  not,  on  the  other  hand,  hold 
himself  strictly  accountable  to  the  Landtag  for  all  his 
administrative  acts.  The  minister  is  ordinarily  a  trained 
and  quasi-permanent  officer,  who  finds  his  prototype  to 
some  extent  in  the  English  under-secretary.  From  the 
nature  of  his  position  he  cannot  be  so  effectually  influenced 
by  individual  members  of  the  Landtag  as  the  minister  of 
the  interior  in  France  may  be  influenced  by  the  deputy,  or 
the  president  of  the  Local  Government  Board  in  England 
by  the  individual  member  of  the  House  of  Commons.  He 
can  thus  act  with  more  regard  for  the  general  national 
welfare,  and  with  less  direct  reference  to  purely  local 
interests,  than  can  his  prototypes  in  the  two  countries 
named. 

Work  of  the       The  duties  of  the  minister  of  the  interior  include  the 
supervision  and  control  of  the  whole  machinery  of  local 


visc?ry  .  .       government  ;  his  office  is  the  focussing-point  of  the  entire 

authorities. 

system,  for  in  it  all  the  important  lines  of  local  jurisdiction 
converge.  Like  the  other  departments  of  the  Prussian 
national  government,  the  Ministry  of  the  Interior  maintains 
a  large  permanent  staff  of  expert  officials,  —  legal,  financial, 
and  technical,  —  who  assist  the  minister  in  the  considera- 
tion and  decision  of  all  matters  which  may  come  before 
him.  The  amount  of  work  which  the  office  is  called  upon 
to  perform  is  very  extensive,  despite  the  fact  that  it  deals 
with  the  towns  and  cities  directly  in  very  few  cases,  its 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  PRUSSIAN   CITIES  123 

functions   being   performed,  for  the   most   part,    through 
intermediate  authorities.1 

For  purposes  of  local  government  Prussia  is  divided  into  Relation  of 
twelve  provinces,  at  the  head  of  each  of  which  is  a  provin-  thg  p^!0 
cial  president  (Oberprasident)  appointed  by  the  king.    This  mce< 
official  corresponds  in  many  respects  to  the  French  prefect, 
for  he  is  not  only  the  administrative  head  of  his  division, 
but  the  local  agent  of  the  central  government  as  well.    In  his 
work  of  supervising  local  government  he  is  assisted  to  some 
extent   by  a  provincial   committee  (Provinzialausschuss), 
which  is  appointed,    usually  from   among  its  own  mem- 
bers,   by    the    provincial    assembly    (Provinzial-Landtag), 
a  body  that  corresponds  roughly  to  the   general  council 
of   the    French     department.      These    twelve    presidents 
execute    ministerial    instructions    within    their    jurisdic- 
tions, and  exercise  a  general  supervision  over  the  district 
authorities. 

Each  province  is  divided  into  districts,  and  each  of  these  Relation  of 
districts  has  its  president  (Regierungs-Prasident)  and  its  dis-  tne  district, 
trict  board  (Bezirksausschuss),  both  appointed  by  the  crown, 
and  the  latter  composed  of  permanent  trained  officials 
whose  powers  of  control  are  both  comprehensive  and  direct. 
It  is  with  these  district  authorities  that  the  Prussian  cities 
come  directly  into  contact.  When  the  exercise  of  any 
municipal  function  requires,  for  its  validity,  the  approval 
of  the  higher  authorities,  it  is  usually  the  district  board 
which  must  be  approached.  It  is  this  body,  for  example, 
that  decides  any  questions  upon  which  the  two  houses  of 
the  city  legislature  may  come  into  conflict. 

The  districts  are,   again,   divided  into  circles  (Kreise) ;  Relation  of 

'       the  city  to 

but  with  the  authorities  of  these  sections  only  the  smallest  the  circle. 

1  For  further  details  concerning  the  organization  and  functions  of  this 
ministry,  see  G.  Anschiitz,  Die  Organisationsgesetze  der  innern  Verwaltung  in 
Preussen  (Berlin,  1897). 


124 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


tio n  of 
Berlin. 


The  city 
electorate. 


cities  have  anything  to  do,  for  any  city  of  more  than 
25,000  population  may  by  ministerial  decree  be  formed 
into  a  separate  circle.  This  has,  in  fact,  been  done  with 
nearly  one  hundred  of  the  larger  Prussian  cities,  in  such 
cases  the  functions  ordinarily  performed  by  the  authorities 
of  the  circle  being  given  to  a  committee  of  the  Magistrat, 
Special  posi-  the  municipal  administrative  board.  Berlin,  like  its 
sister  metropolis  in  France,  does  not  deal  with  the 
central  government  through  the  authorities  of  either 
circle  or  district ;  its  administration  is  supervised,  on 
behalf  of  the  national  government,  by  the  Oberprasident 
of  Brandenburg.1 

The  powers  which  appertain  to  the  Prussian  city  as  a 
public  corporation  are  exercised,  in  the  first  instance, 
through  organs  of  government  chosen  directly  or  indirectly 
by  the  civic  electorate.  This  electorate,  or  political  per- 
sonnel of  the  municipality,  is,  in  the  words  of  the  ex- 
isting laws,2  composed  of  all  independent  (selbstandigen) 
male  German  citizens  twenty-four  years  of  age  or  over 
who  have,  during  the  period  of  one  year,  fulfilled  these 
three  conditions :  —  (1)  resided  continuously  within  the 
city  limits  ;  (2)  paid  the  regular  municipal  taxes  ;  and  (3) 
owned  a  dwelling-house  within  the  municipality,  or  pur- 
sued some  substantial  trade  or  vocation  which  yields 

1  The  Prussian  system  of  provincial,  district,  and  circle  administration  may 
be  studied  in  Karl  Stengel's  Organisation  der  preussischen  Verwaltung  (2  vols., 
Berlin,  1884)  ;  Conrad  Bornhak's  Preussisches  Staatsrecht  (3  vols.,  Freiburg- 
i.-B.,  1888-1890)  ;  and  Hue  de  Grais's  Handbuch  der  Verfassung  und  Ver- 
waltung in  Preussen,  etc.  (17th  ed. ,  Berlin,  1906).    The  texts  of  the  various  local- 
government  laws  are   printed  in   Gerhard  Anschiitz's    Organisations-gesetze 
der  innern  Verwaltung  in  Preussen  (Berlin,  1897).     Descriptions  of  the  sys- 
tem in  English  may  be  conveniently  found  in  F.  J.  Goodnow's  Comparative 
Administrative  Law  (2d  ed.,  New  York,  1903),  I.  295-338  ;   A.  L.  Lowell's 
Government  and  Parties  in  Continental  Europe,  I.  308-377  ;  and  P.  W.  L. 
Ashley's  Local  and  Central  Government  (London,  1906),  133-153. 

2  Stadteordnung,  §  6.    The  amending  legislation  is  summarized  in  Leder- 
mann's  Die  Stadteordnung,  26-34. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  PRUSSIAN  CITIES  125 

an  income,1  or  been  assessed  for  taxes.2  Furthermore, 
non-residents  are  allowed  to  vote  if  they  have  within 
the  year  paid  a  certain  sum  in  direct  local  taxes  ;3  and 
corporations,  if  they  satisfy  the  same  requirement,  are 
enrolled  in  the  ranks  of  the  municipal  electorate  and 
permitted  to  vote  through  their  officers.  The  only  im- 
portant disqualification  is  against  those  who,  though 
otherwise  entitled  to  vote,  have  been  in  receipt  of  public 
poor-relief  during  the  year.  Formerly  the  right  of  muni-  Letters  of 
cipal  citizenship  (Biirgerrecht)  was  evidenced  by  a  Biir- 
gerrechtsbrief,  or  certificate,  which  was  obtained  from  the 
Magistrat  of  the  municipality  by  a  process  of  considerable 
formality.  This  certificate  is,  however,  no  longer  required 
except  in  the  province  of  Hanover.4 

On  the  whole,  the  qualifications  for  voting  in  the  cities  Ratio  of 
of  Prussia  are  not  exacting ;  they  seem  to  exclude  very  total  popu- 
few   who  would  be   admitted    to   voting  rights  under  a  latlon- 
simple  system  of  manhood  suffrage.     In  1905  there  were 
in  Berlin,  out  of  a  total  population  of  2,040,148,  no  less 
than  374,751  enrolled  voters,  or  about  eighteen  per  cent ; 
in  New  York  during  the  same  year  the  enrolled  vote  was 

1  In  cities  of  over  10,000  a  trade  is  not  deemed  "  substantial "  unless  two  or 
more  helpers  are  employed. 

2  By  the  Prussian  Income  Tax  Law  of  1891  ("Einkommensteuergesetz  vom  24. 
Juni  1891,"  in  Gesetz-Sammlung  fur  1891,  pp.  185  ff.),  the  minimum  taxable 
income  in  cities  was  fixed  at  nine  hundred  marks ;  but  sometimes  cities  are  per- 
mitted to  levy  upon  incomes  below  this  minimum,  and  in  such  cases  the  suf- 
frage must  be  given  to  the  smaller  contributors.     See  K.  C.  Brooks  on  "  Berlin's 
Tax  Problem,"  in  Political  Science  Quarterly,  XX.  655;  J.  A.  Hill  on  "The 
Prussian  Income  Tax,"  in  Quarterly  Journal  of  Economics,  VI.  21  ;  and  E. 
Maatz's  Das  preussische  Einkommensteuergesetz  systematisch  dargestellt  (Berlin, 
1902). 

8  This  amount  must  be  sufficient  to  enable  the  non-resident  to  rank  in  the 
"  first  class"  of  taxpayers.  See  below,  p.  131. 

4  On  the  general  question  of  municipal  citizenship,  see  P.  Koslik,  Das  Biir- 
gerrecht  in  den  preussischen  Provinzen  (Berlin,  1888)  ;  and  M.  Bergheim, 
Der  Wohnsitz  im  bilrgerlichen  Secht  (Rostock,  1907).  Honorary  citizenship 
(Ehrenburgerschaft)  is  nowadays  accorded  very  infrequently. 


126  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

660,000  in  a  population  of  4,000,403,  or  only  about  six- 
teen per  cent.1  In  all  the  Prussian  cities  taken  together 
voting  rights  are  extended  to  about  eighteen  per  cent  of 
the  population,  an  average  above  that  in  English  cities 
and  not  substantially  lower  than  that  in  the  cities  of  the 
United  States.  It  seems,  therefore,  to  be  entirely  erro- 
neous to  regard  the  German  electoral  laws  as  shutting 
out  from  any  share  in  the  city  government  a  much  larger 
proportion  of  the  people  than  are  excluded  in  English  or 
American  cities.2  In  bestowing  the  franchise  the  German 
system  is,  indeed,  much  more  democratic  than  has  been 
popularly  supposed ;  but  though  it  enables  one  easily  to 
secure  enrolment  on  the  voters'  list,  it  does  not  by  any 
means  give  those  who  are  enrolled  equal  shares  in  the 
selection  of  their  governing  authorities.  It  is  in  this  par- 
ticular phase  of  the  electoral  system  that  Prussian  and 
American  electorates  differ  most  widely,  as  will  appear  a 
little  later  on. 

Organs  of          The    organs    of   administration   in  a  Prussian  city  are 

mentf°V    "  twofold, —  a  municipal  council  (Stadtverordnetenversamm- 

lung),  and  an  administrative  board  (Magistrat   or    Stadt- 

vorstand),   of   which  the  chief   member  is  the  presiding 

officer,  or  burgomaster  (Burgermeister).3     This  official  has, 

1  Further  data  along  the  same  lines  may  be  found  in  the  Statistisches  Jahr- 
buch  deutscher  Stadte  (1906),  and  in  Bureau  of  the  Census;  Statistics  of  Cities 
(1907).  2  See  also  below,  p.  230. 

8  The  best  convenient  survey  of  contemporary  Prussian  municipal  organiza- 
tion is  the  comprehensive  article  on  the  "Verfassung  und  Verwaltungs-organi- 
sation  der  Stadte :  Konigreich  Preussen,"  in  Schriften  des  Vereins  fur 
Socialpolitik  (Leipsic,  1905-1908),  Vols.  CXVII-CXIX  passim.  A  shorter 
summary  is  Paul  Schon's  article  on  "  Die  Organisation  der  stadtischen 
Verwaltung  in  Preussen,"  in  Annalen  des  deutschen  Eeiches  (1891),  707- 
846 ;  and  the  chapters  on  "  Die  Stadteverfassung "  in  Conrad  Bornhak's 
Preussisches  Verwaltung  srecht  (3  vols.,  Freiburg,  1889-1890)  are  also  ser- 
viceable. More  exhaustive  treatises  are  H.  Steffenhagen's  Handbuch  der  stadt- 
ischen Verfassung  und  Verwaltung  in  Preussen  (2  vols.,  Berlin,  1887)  ;  Eugen 
Leidig's  Preussisches  Stadtrecht  (Berlin,  1891)  ;  and  H.  Lindemann's  Die 
deutsche  Stadteverwaltung  (Stuttgart,  1906). 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  PRUSSIAN  CITIES  127 

of  course,  some  powers  distinct  from  those  possessed  by 
the  Magistrat  as  a  body ;  but  they  are  scarcely  of  sufficient 
importance  (except  in  the  Rhine  Province)  to  warrant 
one's  ranking  him  as  a  separate  agent  in  administration 
in  the  sense  in  which  one  accords  this  status  to  the  mayor 
of  a  French  or  of  an  American  city.  The  work  of  the  two 
main  organs  is  usually  supplemented  by  the  services  of  a 
number  of  citizen  deputies  (Biirgerdeputirter),  who  do  not 
act  as  an  organized  body,  but  serve  as  individual  members 
of  the  various  joint  committees  (Deputationen)  which  are 
maintained  by  the  two  official  branches. 

Of  this  general  organization  the  council  is  the  pivotal  The  city 
point ;  hence  its  composition,  procedure,  powers,  and  gen- 
eral role  may  be  outlined  first  in  order,  although  in  point 
of  power  and  prestige  the  administrative  board    stands 
quite  above  it.     In  size  the  council  varies  widely  in  the  Number  of 
different  cities,  —  Berlin,  as  the  largest  German  city,  hav-  in  different 
ing  144  councillors,  Konigsberg  102,  Mannheim,  Karlsruhe,  Clties> 
and  Freiburg-i.-B.  each  96,  Dresden  78,  Leipsic  and  Char- 
lottenburg   72   each,  Munich   60,  Hanover  24,  and  so   on 
down  to  the  smallest  cities,  which  have  in  no  case  fewer 
than  12.     The  number  of  members  is  fixed  by  the  mu- 
nicipal code  with  somewhat  direct  reference  to  the  popula- 
tion of  the  municipality,  a  city  of  50,000  population  being 
entitled  to  a  council  of  42  members,  and  other  cities  to  a 
larger  or  smaller  number  as  their  populations  warrant.1 

1  The  exact  number  of  councillors  is  arranged  by  the  code  as  follows  ;  but 
changes  may  be  made  by  local  by-laws :  — 

POPULATION  COUKOEUUHIS 

Less  than    2,500 12 

2,500  to         6,000 18 

6,000  to       10,000 .,24 

10,000  to       20,000 30 

20,000  to       30,000 36 

30,000  to       60,000 42 


128  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

On  the  whole,  the  municipal  councils  throughout  Germany 
are  relatively  somewhat  larger  than  those  in  the  United 
States,  but  the  discrepancy  is  not  striking.  Compared 
with  those  of  French  cities  they  are  distinctly  large  ;  but 
between  German  and  English  councils  there  is,  in  the 
matter  of  size,  no  difference  worthy  of  mention.1  Large 
as  the  Prussian  council  may  be,  however,  it  does  not,  in 
view  of  the  sort  of  work  which  it  is  called  upon  to  per- 
form, appear  to  be  unwieldy  or  ill-adapted  to  its  place  in 
the  general  municipal  system. 

Term  and  Councillors  are  elected  for  a  six-year  term,  and  one-third 

election.0      of  their  number  retire  biennially.2     The  election  is  by  di- 
rect vote  of  all  whose  names  are  enrolled  on  the  voters' 
list ;  and  the  choice  is  made,  not  on  a  general  ticket,  but 
by  the  various  election  districts  (Wahlbezirke)  into  which 
The  "three-  the  city  is  divided.     By  far  the  most  unique  feature  of 
system."       the  system  of  election,  however,  is  the  plan  of  grouping 
all  the  voters  into  three  general  classes  according  to  their 
taxpaying  strength,  a  plan  commonly  known  as  the  "  three- 
class  system." 3      The   origin  of  this   peculiar  method  of 

POPULATION  COUNCILLORS 

50,000  to    70,000 48 

70,000  to    90,000 54 

90,000  to  120,000 60 

For  each  additional  unit  of  50,000  six  more  councillors  are  allowed.  To  this 
general  rule  there  are,  however,  some  local  exceptions.  See  Stadteordnung, 
§  12;  and  Leidig,  Preussisches  Stadtrecht,  70  ff. 

1  Boston  has  75  councillors  in  its  larger  chamber,    Chicago  70,  Detroit  34, 
Cleveland  33,  and  St.  Louis  28.     Philadelphia  has  a  council  of  149  members, 
more  than  twice  as  many  as  there  are  in  any  other  American  city.    A  table 
showing  the  comparative   sizes  of  municipal  councils  in  Germany,  France, 
the  United  States,  and  England  is  printed  in  A.  R.  Hatton's  Digest  of  City 
Charters  (Chicago,  1906). 

2  Prior  to  the  passing  of  the  Stadteordnung  of  1853  the  term  was  three  years 
only.     In  all  cases  a  councillor  is  reeligible.    In  the  cities  of  Schleswig-Holstein 
one-sixth  of  the  council  retires  annually. 

8  Officially  the  word  "Abtheilung"  and  not  "  Klasse  "  is  used;  but  the 
system  is  commonly  known  as  the  "Dreiklassensystem."  For  further  details 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  PRUSSIAN  CITIES  129 

grouping  voters  is  to  be  found  in  the  cities  of  the  Rhine 
Province,  where  it  was  devised  by  the  local  government 
code  of  1845  as  a  means  of  affording  the  larger  industrial 
interests  of  that  territory  an  adequate  share  of  representa- 
tion in  the  municipal  councils.1  The  system  was  incor-  its  origin, 
porated,  for  use  in  the  national  elections,  into  the 
Prussian  constitution  of  I860,2  and  three  years  later  found 
its  way  into  the  city-government  code  for  the  six  east- 
ern provinces.3  At  the  present  time  it  is  in  vogue  in 
nearly  all  the  Prussian  cities,4  but  it  has  not  been  adopted 
in  the  municipal  systems  of  the  other  German  states. 

Under  the  existing  system  the  preparation  of  the  voters'  Procedure 
list  in  any  Prussian  city  is  intrusted  to  the  administrative  t°e  voterag 
board,  or  Magistrat ;  but  the  actual  work  of  compilation  mto  classes- 
is  ordinarily  performed  by  a  municipal  election  bureau, 
which  performs  its  function  under  the  supervision  of  some 
designated  member  of  the  board.     This  bureau,  which  is 
composed    of    a    director    (Bureauvorsteher)    and   several 
assistants,  receives  from  the  municipal  police  authorities 
copies  of   all    the  registrations    (Meldungen)    that   must, 
according  to  the  police  regulations,  be  made  by  all  per- 
sons who  come  to  the  municipality  to  stay  or  who  leave  it 
permanently.5     It  also  receives  from  the  local-tax  authori- 
ties (Steuerverwaltung)  statements  of  the  tax  assessments 
of  all  persons  residing  within  the  civic  limits.     From  these 

regarding  it,  see  K.  Grossman,  Das  Wahlrecht  der  Stadteordnung  (Stettin, 
1876)  ;  I.  Jastrow,  Das  Dreiklassensystem  (Berlin,  1894)  ;  Georg  Evert,  Die 
Dreiklassenwahl  in  den  preussischen  Stadt-  und  Landgemeinden  (Berlin,  1901)  ; 
and  R.  C.  Brooks  on  "  The  Three-Class  System  in  Prussian  Cities,"  in 
Municipal  Affairs,  II.  396. 

1  H.  Steffenhagen,  Handbuch  der  stddtischen  Verfassung  und  Verwaltung  in 
Preussen,  Vol.  II.  2  Preussische  Verfassung  von  1850,  Title  V.  70-72. 

8  Stadteordnung,  Title  I.  6-8. 

4  The  exceptions  are  the  cities  of  the  province  of  Hanover  ;  of  Sigmaringen, 
Stralsund,  and  Schleswig ;  and  the  city  of  Frankfort-on-the-Main. 

6  For  details  concerning  this  system  of  registration,  see  F.  Throl's  Das 
polizeiliche  Meldewesen  (Berlin,  1897). 


130  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

data  the  bureau  compiles  its  list  of  voters,  the  largest  tax- 
payer appearing  at  the  head  of  the  list  and  the  others 
following  in  order  of  the  amounts  assessed  upon  them, 
ow  and  Prior  to  1900  the  task  of  making  the  three  groups  was 

methods  of  verv  simple.  The  total  amount  of  taxes  was  first  divided 
division.  into  ^nree  equal  parts ;  then,  beginning  at  the  top  of  the 
list,  the  officers  took  off,  to  form  the  first  class,  just  as 
many  persons  as  had  contributed  one-third  of  the  total 
taxes ;  proceeding  down  the  list  they  next  took  off,  to 
form  the  second  class,  those  who  had  contributed  a  second 
third,  and  then  grouped  all  the  remaining  taxpayers  into 
the  third  class.  In  1900,  however,  this  procedure  was. 
slightly  modified,  and  at  the  same  time  rendered  much 
more  complicated,  by  a  new  enactment  of  the  Prussian 
parliament,  which  made  somewhat  different  provisions  for 
larger  and  smaller  cities.1  In  the  former  class  the  method 
of  dividing  the  voters  is  now  about  as  follows :  In  the  first 
place,  the  sum  of  all  direct  taxes  —  state,  district,  and 
municipal  —  paid  by  citizens  is  reckoned  up  by  the  elec- 
tion bureau  of  each  municipality.  From  this  sum  is  then 
deducted  the  total  amount  of  taxes  paid  by  citizens  who 
are  exempted  by  law  from  the  payment  of  the  national 
income  tax,  or  who  for  any  other  reason  do  not  pay  this 
levy.  The  balance  is  divided  by  the  number  of  taxpayers, 
and  the  result  gives  the  average  per  capita  tax  payment. 
All  those  who  pay  less  than  this  amount  are  put  into  the 
third  class.  The  total  sum  paid  by  these  is  deducted  from 
the  total  amount  of  taxes  levied,  and  the  balance  is  di- 
vided into  two  nearly  equal  parts.  Then,  beginning  with 
the  largest  taxpayer  at  the  head  of  the  whole  list,  the 

1  "  Gesetz,  betreffend  die  Bildung  der  Wahler-Abtheilungen  bei  den  Gemein- 
dewahlen,  vom  39.  Juni  1900,"  in  Gesetz- Sammlung  fur  1900,  pp.  185  ff.  The 
text  of  the  law,  with  explanations,  may  be  found  in  Evert's  Die  Dreiklassen- 
wahl,  1-82. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  PRUSSIAN  CITIES  131 

officials  take  off  as  many  names  as  suffice  by  their  pay- 
ments to  make  up  one  of  these  halves,  and  these  they  call 
the  first  class.  The  remaining  taxpayers  constitute  the 
second  class.1 

The  proportion  of  voters  who  fall  into  the  three  classes  Numerical 


differs   very    greatly    in    different    cities  ;    but    it    is    ex-  0 


tremely  uncommon  to  find  the  members  of  the  first  class  erouP8- 
forming  more  than  two   or  three  per  cent  of  the  total.2 
The  first  and  second  classes,  taken  together,  ordinarily  form 

1  The  method  of  procedure  may  perhaps  be  rendered  somewhat  clearer  by 
the  subjoined  explanation  in  regard  to  the  dividing  of  the  Berlin  electorate  in 
1905,  kindly  furnished  by  Magistrats-Sekretar  Otto  Busse,  Vorsteher  des  Bureaus 
fur  Wahlangele^enheiten  :  "  The  total  number  of  voters  in  Berlin  for  the  year 
1905  is  374,751,  with  a  total  tax  payment  of  61,754,611  marks.     From  these 
totals  are  taken  32,443  voters,  with  a  total  tax  payment  of  277,459  marks,  be- 
cause they  do  not  pay  the  national  income  tax  and  hence  do  not  come  into 
account  in  determining  the  average  tax  rate  upon  which  the  grouping  of  voters 
is  based.     After  these  two  subtractions  are  made  there  remain  342,308  voters, 
with  a  total  payment  of  61,377,152  marks  or  an  average  payment  of  179  marks, 
60  pfgs.  each.    All  those  whose  annual  taxes  amount  to   less  than  this  sum 
are  placed  in  the  third  class.     In  Berlin  the  third   class,  constituted  in  this 
way,  comprises  340,565  voters,  with  a  total  tax  payment  of  11,096,743  marks. 
This  sum,  subtracted  from  the  first  total  (61,754,611  marks)  leaves  50,657,868 
marks  as  the  total  tax  contribution  of  the  two  upper  classes.     This  latter  sum 
is  divided  as  nearly  as  may  be  into  two  equal  halves  (26,332,669  and  25,325,199 
marks)  ,  and  the  number  of  heavier  taxpayers  necessary  to  make  up  the  former 
sum  constitutes  the  first  class,  while  the  number  required  to  make  up  the  latter 
sum  constitutes  the  second  class  (34,186).    The  three  classes  are  thus  formed 
as  follows  :  — 

Class     I.       1829  voters  contributing  a  total  of  ....  25,332,669  marks 

Class    II.    32,357   ..............  25,325,199  marks 

Class  III.  340,565   ..............  11,096,743  marks 

374,751  61,754,611 

"The  32,443  special  non-income-tax-paying  voters  who  are  taken  out  of  the 
lists  before  the  first  average  is  determined  are  put  into  that  class  to  which  their 
respective  other  annual  payments  entitle  them.  The  slight  inequality  in  the 
total  sums  contributed  by  the  first  and  second  classes  arises  from  the  fact  that 
any  persons  who  pay  the  same  amount  of  taxes  as  the  last  voter  in  the  first 
class  are  put  into  that  class.  The  smallest  taxpayer  in  the  first  class  paid  in 
1905  the  sum  of  3961  marks  ;  the  lowest  in  the  second  class  paid  179  marks  ; 
while  the  lowest  in  the  third  class  paid  3  marks." 

2  The  appended  table,  compiled  from  the  Statistisches  Jahrbuch  deutscher 


132 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


Importance 
of  the 
arrange- 
ment. 


only  from  ten  to  twenty  per  cent  of  the  whole  electorate ; 
hence  it  comes  about,  as  will  be  seen  later,  that  two-thirds  of 
the  councillors  are  chosen  by  from  one-tenth  to  one-fifth 
of  the  voters.  In  some  instances,  indeed,  the  proportions 
of  the  classes  become  ludicrous,  as  in  the  familiar  case  of 
Essen,  the  seat  of  the  Krupp  Works.  Here  there  were, 
at  the  elections  of  1900,  only  three  voters  in  the  first  class, 
401  in  the  second,  and  18,991  in  the  third  ;  but  the  three 
voters  of  the  first  class  elected  one-third  of  the  whole 
municipal  council,  and  404  voters  out  of  nearly  20,000 
elected  two-thirds  of  it. 

This  system  of  classifying  voters  in  Prussian  cities  is 
highly  important  from  several  points  of  view,  but  espe- 
cially because  it  puts  the  preponderance  of  influence  in 
the  hands  of  the  wealthier  citizens,  who  are  usually,  it 
may  fairly  be  said,  inclined  to  conservatism  in  municipal 
expenditure.1  Indeed,  the  system  gives  practically  abso- 
lute control  of  the  municipal  outlay  to  those  who  have 
contributed  the  major  part  of  the  municipal  income,  and 
who  have  therefore,  very  naturally,  a  strong  desire  to  see 
their  contributions  spent  as  wisely  and  as  economically  as 
possible.  The  Prussian  electoral  system  is  based  upon 
the  representation  of  interests  rather  than  of  numbers ; 

Stadte  (1906),  -will  serve  to  give  some  idea  of  the  proportions  of  the  three 
classes  in  different  cities.  The  figures  are  for  the  years  1900-1903  :  — 


CITY 

TEAK 

CLASS  ] 

CLASS  II 

CLASS  III 

TOTAL 

Berlin   

1903 

1857 

29  711 

317  537 

349  105 

Breslau     

1902 

669 

4  358 

21  184 

26,211 

Konigsberg    .... 
Cologne     

1903 
1903 

385 
611 

2,496 
5,659 

19,391 
41,321 

22,272 
47,491 

Leipsic       

1902 

1487 

4,430 

24463 

30,380 

Essen    

1900 

3 

401 

18,991 

19,395 

Stettin  

1902 

374 

2  984 

29  235 

32  593 

Halle  a/S  

1903 

178 

1  727 

20,297 

22  202 

1  The  system,  it  may  be  noted,  does  not  apply  in  Frankfort-on-the-Main  or  in 
the  cities  of  Schleswig-Holstein. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  PRUSSIAN  CITIES  133 

and  the  amount  of  interest  which  any  citizen  possesses 
in  the  governance  of  the  city  is  gauged  by  the  amount  of 
taxes  he  pays.  One  may  suggest  that  a  good  deal  of 
the  "  thrifty  municipal  housekeeping "  for  which  the 
Prussian  cities  have  become  favorably  known  results 
from  the  plain  fact  that  the  expenditure  of  public  funds 
is  controlled  almost  absolutely  by  that  small  proportion 
of  the  voters  who  have  the  highest  interest  in  keeping  this 
expenditure  down  to  the  lowest  possible  point. 

On   the  other  hand,  the  three-class  system  has  its  ob-  Disadvan- 
vious  drawbacks,  and  some  of  its  incidents  are  distinctly  8yftem. 
objectionable.     It  tends,  for  instance,  to  carry  social  and 
economic  distinctions  into  the  polling-room,  where,  accord- 
ing to  the  fiction   that  American   cities  have  vigorously 
attempted  to  maintain,  all  citizens  are  equal.     It  antago- 
nizes a  large  number  of  voters  who  know  that,  even  though  Antago- 
they  may  stand  together,  they  can  at  best  control  but  a  voters™*117 
minority  of  the  councillors,  and  that  even  the  united  wish 
of  perhaps  nine-tenths  of  the  citizens  plainly  expressed  at 
the  polls  does  not  have  any  assurance  of  effectiveness.    That 
the  system  thus  discourages  many  of  the  third  class  from 
taking  any  part  in  the  elections  is  shown  by  the  fact  that 
the  proportion  of  polled  to  qualified  votes  is  much  smaller 
in  this  class  than  in  either  of  the  other  two  groups,  —  a 
feature  particularly  noticeable  in  the  industrial  and  com- 
mercial centres,  where  there  is  a  large  laboring  population 
and   where    the    Social    Democrats   form  a  strong  politi- 
cal   element.     The    grievance    of   this   class    of   voters  is 
strengthened,  moreover,  by  the  fact  that  in  the  imperial  is  not  used 
elections  manhood    suffrage,   without   any  divisions    into  elections, 
voting  classes,  has  had  recognition  since  1871.     Why,  ask 
many  Germans,  should  all  citizens  be  intrusted  equally  with 
the   selection    of    those   representatives   who    control    the 
larger  and  more  important  questions  of  imperial  policy,  — 


134  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

the  army,  the  navy,  the  tariff,  the  whole  field  of  criminal 
and  civil  law,  —  and  yet  be  denied  an  equal  voice  in  the 
choosing  of  civic  authorities,  who  have  to  deal  with  nar- 
rower and  less  momentous  problems  ?  What  justification 
is  there  for  a  policy  that  gives  two  neighbors  equal  shares 
in  the  control  of  hundreds  of  millions  annually  expended 
for  imperial  purposes,  but  vastly  unequal  shares  in  the 
control  of  hundreds  of  thousands  annually  disbursed  for 
local  purposes  ?  The  answer  is,  of  course,  that  the  princi- 
ple of  manhood  suffrage  made  its  way  into  the  imperial 
constitution,  not  because  it  was  for  its  own  sake  regarded 
with  favor  by  Bismarck  and  his  friends,  but  because  it  was 
held  to  be  a  necessary  concession  to  German  popular  senti- 
ment at  a  time  when  it  was  extremely  desirable  that  all 
elements  should  be  welded  into  sympathy  with  the  new 
constitutional  arrangements.  In  the  eyes  of  the  imperial 
authorities  the  system  of  manhood  franchise  has  not  proved 
itself  so  satisfactory  as  to  warrant  any  extension  of  it  to 
municipal  elections.  On  the  contrary,  there  is  a  strong 
element  among  the  German  population  which  would  very 
gladly  see  a  retrenchment  of  the  imperial  electorate  in 
order  that  the  strength  of  the  Social  Democrats  might 
thereby  be  impaired.1 

The  three-          From  time  to  time  various  proposals  for  a  radical  alter- 
in  national    ation  in  the  three-class  system  have  been  brought  forward, 
flections       ^ut  none  °f  them  have  encountered  a  favorable  reception 
at  the  hands  -of  the  Prussian  national  authorities.     The 
three-class  system  of  voting,  it  may  be  mentioned,  is  also 
used  in   the   state   elections,  but   the  procedure  followed 
in  dividing  the  groups  differs  somewhat   from  that  laid 
down  for  the  municipalities.     In  some  respects  the  national 

1  The  matter  is  discussed,  from  the  standpoint  of  an  outsider,  in  H.  Nfizard's 
devolution  du  suffrage  universel  en  Prusse  et  dans  Vempire  allemand  (Paris, 
1905). 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  PRUSSIAN  CITIES  135 

system  of  grouping  the  voters  offers  broader  ground  for 
criticism  than  the  municipal  plan  ;  it  is  against  the  former, 
indeed,  that  popular  outbursts  have  during  the  last  few 
years  been  directed.  In  this  sphere,  therefore,  reforms  in 
the  electoral  system  may  first  be  expected,  though  as  yet  the 
Prussian  authorities  have  shown  no  signs  of  yielding  to 
the  demands  of  those  who  desire  concessions  in  the  direc- 
tion of  manhood  suffrage.  Still,  the  system  has  in  opera- 
tion produced  so  many  anomalies  and  even  absurdities 
that  important  changes  of  some  sort  can  scarcely  be  very 
long  deferred.1 

For  the  election  of  councillors  the   Prussian  cities  are  Councillors 
divided  into  electoral  districts,  each  of  the  three  classes 


having  its  own  set  of  these  divisions.  In  Berlin,  for  tncts' 
example,  there  are  sixteen  districts  for  the  voters  of  the 
first  class,  sixteen  for  the  second,  and  forty-eight  for  the 
third.2  These  districts  are  mapped  out  by  the  decisions 
of  the  administrative  board,  or  Magistrat  ;  but  any  action 
of  this  body  must  be  confirmed  by  the  higher  authorities.8 
Changes  in  the  boundaries  of  election  districts  are  not 
made  very  frequently  ;  indeed,  the  boundaries  are  too  often 
left  unchanged  when  the  shifting  of  population  seems  to 
demand  redistricting.  In  Berlin,  for  example,  where  there 
has  been  no  rearrangement  of  the  election  districts  since 
1897,  there  are  at  present  such  important  differences  in  the 

1  It  is  said  that  even  Prince  von  Billow,  the  imperial  chancellor,  found  him- 
self at  the  last  Prussian  elections  enrolled  in  the  third  class.     Bismarck  once 
denounced  the  three-class  system  as  "the  most  miserable  and  absurd  election 
law  that  has  ever  been  formulated  in  any  country."     The  relation  of  the  system 
to  Prussian  theories  of  government  is  discussed  in  Rudolph  von  Gneist's  Die 
nationale  Eechtsidee  von  den  Standen  und  das  preussische  Dreiklassensystem 
(Berlin,  1894). 

2  Straube's  Plan  von  Berlin  unter  Angabe  der  Gfrenzen  der  Gemeindewahl- 
bezirke  nach  der  Eintheilung  vom  Jahre  1897  (Berlin,  1898). 

8  "  Gesetz  betreffend  die  Abandoning  und  Enganzung  einiger  Bestimmungen 
wegen  der  Wahl  der  Stadtverordneten  von  1891,"  in  Gesetz-  Sammlung  fur  1891, 
pp.  20  ff. 


136  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

populations  of  the  various  divisions  that  councillors  who 
are  elected  by  voters  of  the  same  class  at  the  same  elec- 
tion may  have  by  no  means  the  same  number  of  constit- 
uents, a  situation  which  may  be  explained  by  the  fact 
that,  although  the  election  districts  have  remained  the 
same  for  more  than  a  decade,  the  grouping  of  the  voters 
is  rearranged  annually.  Even  though  left  thus  unaltered 
for  considerable  periods,  the  electoral  districts  acquire  no 
traditions ;  they  have  no  local  sentiment  and  no  unity  of 
interests.  The  German  Wahlbezirk ,  unlike  the  French 
arrondissement,  is  a  purely  arbitrary  area.  It  is  not, 
therefore,  for  any  sentimental  reason  that  there  has  been 
no  redistricting  for  a  decade  ;  it  is  merely  because  the  elec- 
tion district  is  used  as  a  basis  by  so  many  of  the  local  ad- 
ministrative departments  that  any  changes  in  boundaries 
would  compel  much  rearrangement  in  administrative  work. 
Berlin  as  an  Each  of  the  sixteen  first-class  districts  in  Berlin  elects  a 
district6  (  councillor  every  two  years,  and  so  does  each  of  the  sixteen 
apportion-  districts  of  the  second  class.  Each  of  the  forty-eight  dis- 

ment. 

tricts  of  the  third  class,  however,  elects  one  councillor  every 
sixth  year  only ;  that  is  to  say,  sixteen  third-class  districts 
elect  a  councillor  biennially,  the  turn  of  each  district  arriv- 
ing every  sixth  year.  Since,  then,  a  voter  in  the  third  class 
is  called  upon  to  state  his  choice  only  once  in  six  years, 
and  then  only  for  a  single  councillor,  changes  in  sentiment 
among  third-class  voters  reflect  themselves  in  the  compo- 
sition of  the  council  much  more  slowly  than  do  such 
changes  among  the  members  of  the  two  upper  classes. 
This  infrequency  of  polling  also  militates  against  the  main- 
tenance of  any  well-developed  party  organization  among 
voters  of  the  lowest  class  ;  for  the  long  intervals  between 
third-class  elections  permit  political  interest  to  subside. 

Ordinarily  any  one  who  is  qualified  to  vote  is  competent 
to  become  a  candidate  for  election  to  the  municipal  coun- 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  PRUSSIAN  CITIES  137 

cil.  No  individual  property  qualification  is  exacted ;  but  Quaiifica- 
the  code  requires  that  at  least  one-half  of  the  councillors  manded~of 
elected  to  represent  each  of  the  three  classes  shall  be  councillors- 
owners  of  real  property.1  If,  after  an  election,  it  is  found 
that  this  requirement  is  not  satisfied  by  the  men  chosen, 
those  non-propertied  councilmen  who  obtained  the  smallest 
numbers  of  votes  must  retire,  and  allow  their  places  to  be 
filled  by  property-owning  candidates  elected  at  a  supple-  Property 
mentary  polling.2  Upon  the  voters  of  the  two  upper 
classes  this  requirement  imposes  very  little  restriction  in 
the  choice  of  candidates ;  for  the  number  of  property- 
owners  among  them,  especially  among  those  in  the  first 
class,  is  naturally  large.  To  the  voters  of  the  third  group, 
however,  the  restraint  means  a  great  deal,  particularly  in 
a  city  like  Berlin,  where  the  number  of  property-owners 
among  third-class  voters  is  very  small.  It  sometimes 
happens,  therefore,  that  voters  of  this  class  support  candi- 
dates whom  they  would  not  uphold  if  their  choice  were 
not  curtailed  by  this  provision  ;  and  it  occasionally  comes 
to  pass  that  candidates  who  are  themselves  voters  in  the  first 
or  the  second  group  secure  election  at  the  hands  of  third- 
class  voters  largely  because  there  are  so  few  qualified  can- 
didates among  the  latter.  There  is  nothing  in  the  laws,  it 
may  be  added,  which  prevents  a  voter  of  one  class  from 
being  chosen  to  represent  another  class ;  but  in  practice 
such  choices  are  not  usual.  The  two  upper  classes  almost 
invariably  choose  representatives  from  their  own  numbers  ; 
it  is  only  the  third-class  voters  who  are  likely  to  go  outside 
their  own  ranks  for  candidates. 

At  various  times  and  in  various  ways  attempts  have  Attempted 
been  made  to  evade  the  strict  application  of  the  rule  which 
requires  that  one-half  of  the  councillors  representing  each  tion> 

1  Stadteordnung,  §  16. 

2  Entscheidungen  des  Oberverwaltungsgerichts,  XXXII.  6. 


138  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

class  shall  be  owners  of  real  property.  Though  not  wholly 
confined  to  any  one  group,  such  attempts  at  evasion  have 
been  especially  frequent  among  the  third-class  voters,  upon 
whom  the  restriction  bears  most  heavily.  Some  years 
ago,  for  instance,  non-property-owning  candidates  from  this 
group  adopted  the  expedient  of  acquiring,  before  the  elec- 
tion, small  undivided  interests  in  some  piece  of  property 
within  the  municipality,  paying  therefor  only  nominal 
sums,  and  a  dozen  or  more  of  them  seeking  to  qualify  upon 
the  same  estate.  This  move,  however,  the  administrative 
courts  promptly  checkmated  by  deciding  that  sole  owner- 
ship (Alleinbesitz)  of  some  substantial  parcel  of  property 
was  essential  to  the  fulfilment  of  the  requirement.1 
Some  results  When  this  property  restriction  was  first  adopted  it  was 
erty*requii£  m  many  respects  salutary,  and  in  its  actual  operation  did 
ment.  no^  foear  unreasonably  upon  any  class  of  voters.  A  cen- 

tury ago,  or  even  a  half-century  ago,  the  percentage  of  prop- 
erty-owners in  the  larger  German  cities  was  considerable, 
and  the  area  over  which  the  choice  of  candidates  could 
be  spread  was  correspondingly  broad  ;  but  at  the  present 
time  the  proportion  of  property-owners  in  Berlin  does  not 
amount  to  more  than  five  per  cent  of  the  population,  and 
from  this  small  element  seventy-two  members  of  the  coun- 
cil must  be  chosen.  In  the  larger  Prussian  cities,  as  in 
the  larger  cities  of  other  countries,  the  ownership  of  real 
property  is  becoming  concentrated  in  the  hands  of  a  com- 
paratively few  men,  while  wealth  in  the  form  of  personal 
property  is  perhaps  becoming  more  widely  diffused.  Since 
a  modern  city  may  thus  contain  thousands  of  wealthy 
men  who  own  no  real  property  at  all,  the  emphasis  which 

1  Entscheidungendes  Oberverwaltungsgerichts,  XXXVIII.  26  ff.  The  owner- 
ship must  exist  at  the  time  of  the  election  ;  but  a  subsequent  sale  of  the  prop- 
erty does  not  serve  to  unseat  a  councillor.  On  this  and  various  other  points 
connected  with  the  interpretation  of  §  16,  see  Ledermann,  Die  /Stddteordnung, 
70-71. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  PRUSSIAN  CITIES  139 

the  Prussian  law  lays  upon  such  possessions  has  seemed  to 
many  to  be  unfair  and  at  the  present  time  unreasonable. 
This  aspect  of  the  case  has  been  very  clearly  set  forth  by 
a  recent  writer,  who  urges  that  the  requirement  should  Proposals 


now  be  eliminated  from  the  code  as  no  longer  in  keeping  ^J^ 
with  economic  conditions.1  In  this  connection,  however, 
it  should  be  noted  that  the  proportion  of  property-owners 
in  the  Prussian  councils  has  almost  invariably  been  well 
over  the  required  half  if  the  councillors  be  taken  as  a 
body,  —  a  condition  of  affairs  which  contrasts  very  sharply 
with  the  situation  in  most  American  cities.  In  Berlin 
about  three-quarters  of  the  present  councillors  are  owners  of 
real  property,  and  in  some  other  cities  the  proportion  is 
even  higher. 

Subject  to  the  foregoing  requirement,  almost  any  voter  Disquaim- 
is  eligible  to  candidacy  ;  but  there  are  a  few  disqualifica-  catl° 
tions  which  deserve  mention.  In  the  first  place,  no  gov- 
ernment official  or  member  of  any  higher  body  through 
which  state  supervision  is  exercised  over  cities  is  eligible 
to  membership  in  the  municipal  council  ;  and,  with  certain 
exceptions  in  the  case  of  the  smaller  cities,  no  paid  civic 
employee,  high  or  low,  is  eligible.  The  law  also  disquali- 
fies from  candidacy  all  clergymen  and  all  church  officers, 
as  well  as  all  teachers  in  the  elementary  schools,  all  judges 
and  court  officers,  and  all  officials  connected  with  the  police 
administration.  A  curious  and  interesting  provision  is 
that  which  prevents  members  of  the  same  family  from  be- 
longing to  the  council  at  the  same  time  :  when  two  such 
are  elected,  the  younger  must  retire.2 

Candidates  for  election  to  the  city  council  in  Prussia 

1  G.  Dryander  on  "Der  §  16  der  preussischen  Stadteordnung  und  die  Haus- 
besitzer  unserer  Grosstadte,"  in  Annalen  des  deutsclien  Seiches  (1903),  430-450. 

2  The  various  exclusions  and  disqualifications  are  enumerated  in  the  Stadte- 
ordnung, §  17.    On  their  exact  scope  and  interpretation,  see  A.  W.  Jebens, 
Die  Stadtverordneten,   38-48  ;  and  O.  Oertel,  Die  Stadteordnung  ^  96-101. 


140  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

NO  formal  are  not  nominated  by  any  primary,  caucus,  or  other  pre- 
o£candi-10n  liminary  proceeding;  indeed,  they  cannot  be  brought  to 
datets.for  official  notice  in  any  legal  way.  There  is  no  provision 
the  council,  for  candidacy  by  nomination  papers,  or  any  other  form 
of  authoritative  announcement ;  and  no  nominations  are 
received  by  any  election  officer.  In  the  selection  of 
the  councillors  there  is  but  one  official  step,  the  polling. 
It  is,  of  course,  true  in  Prussia,  as  in  France,  that  in  the 
weeks  preceding  an  election  the  various  political  clubs 
and  party  organizations  usually  reach  somewhat  definite 
understandings  as  to  what  candidates  their  members  will 
support  at  the  polls  ;  but  such  agreements  are  not  com- 
municated to  any  electoral  authority.1  As  no  printed  bal- 
lots are  used  in  the  process  of  polling,  there  is  no  necessity 
for  any  of  the  procedure  which  Americans  and  Englishmen 
connect  with  the  term  "  nomination."  So  far  as  the  elec- 
tion authorities  are  concerned,  each  voter  is  left  entirely 
unguided  in  making  his  choice. 

The  polling.  The  polling  in  Prussian  city  elections  takes  place  in 
November,  upon  a  day  or  days  fixed  by  vote  of  the  ad- 
ministrative board,  or  Magistrat.2  At  least  four  months 
prior  to  this  date  the  list  of  voters  in  each  election  district 
is  prepared  in  the  manner  already  described,  and  in  due 
time  is  publicly  posted  for  examination.8  Objections  are 
heard  and  disposed  of  by  a  committee  of  the  municipal 
council;  but  the  decisions  of  this  committee  must  be 
indorsed  by  vote  of  the  whole  council,  and  must  also 
have  the  concurrence  of  the  Magistrat.  In  the  event  of 
a  disagreement  between  these  two  bodies  the  matter  goes 
to  the  higher  local  authorities,  whose  decision  is  final.4 

Notices  sent 

to  voters.       It  is  the  duty  of  the  Magistrat  to  see  that  at  least  fourteen 

1  See  below,  pp.  39-41.       2  Stadteordnung,  §§  19-20.      8  See  above,  pp.  129  ff. 
*  Stadteordnung,  §  20 ;  and  amendments  summarized  in  Ledermann's  Die 
Stadteordnung,  80-84. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  PRUSSIAN  CITIES  141 

days  before  the  date  set  for  polling  every  voter  is  duly 
notified  of  the  date,  the  place,  and  the  hours  of  balloting, 
a  notification  which  it  usually  communicates  by  mailing 
to  the  address  of  each  voter  a  postal  card  giving  the  nec- 
essary information.1  In  addition,  every  recognized  clergy- 
man in  the  city  is  requested  by  the  authorities  to  announce 
the  polling  from  his  pulpit,  and  at  the  same  time  to  empha- 
size the  duties  of  citizens  with  reference  to  the  election.2 

Places  of  polling  are  likewise  selected  by  the  Magistrat,  Location  of 
upon  recommendation  of  that  particular  member  of  the 
body  whose  duty  it  is  to  supervise  the  election  machinery. 
There  must  be  at  least  one  polling-place  in  every  election 
district ;  but  for  voters  of  the  third  class  it  is  customary 
to  provide  several  such  places.  Very  commonly  some  pub- 
lic building  is  used  for  the  purpose ;  but  more  often  the 
voting  takes  place  in  some  conveniently  situated  Lokal,  or 
beer-hall.  As  no  funds  are  provided  to  pay  rental  for 
polling-places,  the  authorities  find  themselves  constrained 
to  accept  the  use  of  rooms  offered  gratuitously  be- 
cause of  the  business  which  the  coming  of  a  throng  of 
voters  promises  to  bring.  No  intoxicating  liquor  may  be 
sold  in  the  room  where  the  polling  actually  takes  place ; 
but  it  may  be,  and  usually  is,  sold  in  the  adjoining  rooms 
of  the  same  premises.  The  poll  is  kept  open  from  morn- 

1  A  translation  of  one  of  these  notifications  reads  as  follows :  — 

Official    Notice    of    Municipal    Election 
on  Wednesday,  November  30,  1904 

from  10  A.M.  to  8  P.M. 
Election    District    No.    30,    Precinct  2 

HI.   Class 

Polling-room :  Public  School,  67  August  St. 
(As  a  means  of  identification  one  may  present  this  card. ) 

THE  MAGISTRAT. 

2  There  is,  however,  no  means  of  forcing  clergymen  to  comply  with  this 
request.    See  Preussisches  Verwaltungsblatt,  XXIV.  807,  §  27. 


142 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


The  poll- 
bureau. 


Method  of 

casting 

votes. 


Merits  and 
defects 
of  the  sys- 
tem. 


ing  till  evening,  the  exact  hours  being  fixed  by  the  elec- 
tion authorities. 

The  poll  is  put  in  charge  of  a  committee  of  three  men, 
made  up  of  a  chairman  (Vorsitzender),  who  is  appointed 
by  the  Burgermeister,  and  two  associates  (Beisitzer),  who 
are  named  by  the  city  council.  These  three  decide,  by  a 
majority  vote,  any  questions  which  may  arise  in  connec- 
tion with  the  voting.1  A  clerk,  some  scrutineers  or  watch- 
ers appointed  by  interested  candidates,  and  the  inevitable 
policeman  complete  the  personnel  of  the  polling-place. 
One  notices  in  the  Prussian  polling-booth  the  absence 
of  any  ballot-box,  ballots,  compartments  for  marking 
ballot-papers,  —  in  fact,  of  all  the  familiar  paraphernalia 
of  the  American  poll.  On  the  table  before  the  chairman 
lies  a  large  book  in  which  are  inscribed  the  names,  ad- 
dresses, and  occupations  of  all  those  entitled  to  vote,  with 
a  blank  space  after  each  name  in  wrhich  the  voter's  choice 
is  to  be  written.  The  voter  comes  to  the  table,  gives  his 
name,  and  presents  the  postal  card  which  has  been  sent 
to  him  some  days  previously.  If  this  has  not  been  received, 
or  has  been  lost  or  mislaid,  he  must  present  some  other 
identifying  document,  such  as  a  tax  receipt,  a  certificate 
of  military  service,  or  even  a  lease ;  for  no  vote  will  be 
received  until  the  voter's  identification  has  been  estab- 
lished to  the  entire  satisfaction  of  the  poll-committee. 
This  formality  having  been  satisfied,  he  is  asked  to  desig- 
nate his  choice ;  and  this  he  must  do  orally  and  in  a  loud 
voice  (mundlich  und  laut).  The  name  which  he  pro- 
nounces is  then  written  in  the  book  immediately  after 
his  name.  The  whole  procedure  is  thus  extremely  simple, 
leaving  no  room  whatever  for  personation,  repeating,  ballot- 
switching,  and  the  various  other  sinister  practices  which 


1  Stadteordnung,  §  24. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  PRUSSIAN  CITIES  143 

a  close  contest  in  an  American  city  too  often  brings  into 
operation.1 

The  Prussian  city  elections  are  conducted  with  absolute 
fairness,  and  in  an  orderly,  dignified  manner.  The  obvi- 
ous and  grave  objection  to  the  system  is,  however,  that 
the  voting  is  open  and  not  secret,  —  that  the  voter's  choice 
is  indicated  in  the  presence  of  those  watchers  who  repre- 
sent the  different  candidates.2  Against  this  publicity 
there  has  been  a  great  deal  of  protest,  especially  from  voters 
of  the  third  class,  who  claim  that  the  system  lends  itself  to 
the  exercise  of  pressure  which  amounts  virtually  to  intimi- 
dation. The  leaders  among  the  Social  Democrats  insist 
that  open  voting  tends  to  destroy  any  freedom  of  choice 
on  the  part  of  employees  who  dislike  to  antagonize  their 
employers,  and  that  it  renders  the  whole  body  of  state 
and  civic  officials  mere  agents  for  registering  the  will  of 
their  administrative  superiors.  The  system  is,  indeed, 
open  to  all  the  objections  which  were  raised  in  American 
cities  against  the  practice  of  open  voting  when  that  method 
was  in  vogue  several  decades  ago.  In  the  German  imperial 
elections  the  voting  is  by  secret  ballot,  and  the  advantages 
of  this  system  have  strongly  impressed  themselves  upon 
many  of  the  Prussian  municipal  voters ;  but  so  long  as 
the  control  of  Prussian  national  government  is  in  the 
hands  of  the  conservative  element  the  adoption  of  the 
secret  ballot  in  city  elections  is  not  probable. 

A  feature  of  the  Prussian  electoral  system  is  that  the  The  three 
three  classes  of  voters  do  not  vote  on  the  same  date.     The 
law  requires  that  the  voters  of  the  third  class  shall  elect 
their  quota  of  councillors  before  the  voters  of  the  second 
class  are  called  to   the    polls ;    and    these    latter,    again, 

1  Various  questions  relating  to  procedure  at  the  polls  are  discussed  in  Jebens's 
Die  Stadtverordneten,  89-107. 

2  Only  in  the  city  of  Frankfort-on-the-Main  is  secret  voting  in  vogue. 


144  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

must  conclude  their  voting  before  the  voters  of  the  first 
class  proceed  to  ballot.1  For  the  two  upper  classes  the 
polling  lasts  but  a  single  day,  and  the  poll  is  sometimes 
kept  open  for  only  a  few  hours ;  but  in  the  case  of  the 
third  group  the  polling  may  continue  for  more  than  a  day, 

Duration  of  and  it  sometimes  does  last  for  two  or  even  for  three  days, 
the  poll  being  kept  open  each  day  from  morning  till  late 
in  the  evening.  As  the  different  classes  vote  on  different 
days,  the  same  polling-places  usually  serve  for  all  three. 

Counting  At  a  Prussian  municipal  election  there  can  of  course  be 

ie  votes.  no  disputed  or  spoiled  votes,  and  there  are  rarely  any 
questions  for  the  poll-committee  to  decide.  The  watchers, 
or  scrutineers,  who  represent  the  different  candidates  in 
the  polling-room,  keep  tally  of  the  votes ;  hence  the  num- 
ber polled  by  each  candidate  is  known  definitely  at  every 
stage,  and  when  the  poll  is  closed  the  result  is  seen  at 
once.  The  official  return  (Wahlprotokolle)  is,  however, 
carefully  compiled  from  the  polling-book,  and  after  it  has 
been  signed  by  the  members  of  the  poll-committee  is 
transmitted  to  the  Magistrat,  by  which  formal  announce- 
ment of  the  result  of  the  election  is  made. 

An  abso-  In  order  to  secure  election  at  the  first  polling,  a  candi- 

date  must  have  received  a  clear  majority  of  all  the  votes 
cas^  '2  m  no  case  ^oes  a  plurality  suffice  to  elect  unless  it  be 
also  a  majority.  Owing  to  the  comparative  inefficiency 
of  party  organization,  however,  together  with  the  well- 
known  native  political  independence  of  the  German  voter, 
it  very  frequently  happens  that  this  requirement  is  not 

Suppiemen-   satisfied.     In  such  cases  a  supplementary  election  (engere 

tary polling.  ^ahl)  must  be  held  within  the  next  eight  days,  the  place 
of  polling,  the  organization  of  the  poll,  and  the  voting  pro- 
cedure being  the  same  as  at  the  general  elections.  Notices 
are  again  sent  to  the  voters,  but  this  time  they  contain 

1  Stadteordnung,  §  21.  2  Stadteordnung,  §  26. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  PRUSSIAN  CITIES  145 

the  names  of  two  candidates,  to  which  the  voter's  choice 

is  rigidly  limited.     These  candidates    are    the    two  who 

received  the  highest  and  second  highest  number  of  votes 

at  the  previous  polling.     When  two  candidates  are  to  be 

elected,  the  four  highest  are  eligible  at  the  second  poll- 

ing; when  three  are  to  be  chosen,  the    six  highest,  and 

so  on.     This  system,  though  similar  in  principle  to   the 

French  ballotage,  differs  from  it  in  one  important  detail. 

In  France,  as  has  been  noticed,  the  voter's  choice  at  the  French  and 

supplementary  election  remains  as  free  from  restriction  as 


at  the  first  one,  but  at  this  polling  a  mere  plurality  is  suppiemen- 
sufficient  to  elect.  In  Prussia,  on  the  other  hand,  the  tions. 
political  contest  is  narrowed  down  to  twice  as  many  can- 
didates as  there  are  posts  to  be  filled.  In  some  cases, 
indeed,  the  Prussian  system  works  out  in  such  a  way  as 
to  make  the  first  election  correspond  to  the  primary  elec- 
tion in  American  cities  :  the  two  candidates  who  survive 
for  the  supplementary  election  are  the  representatives  of 
the  two  strongest  political  factions,  the  first  poll  serv- 
ing only  to  weed  out  from  a  considerable  number  of  aspi- 
rants the  real  standard-bearers  of  two  opposing  parties. 
In  most  cases,  however,  the  system  does  not  operate  in 
just  this  way  ;  for  elections  at  the  first  polling  are  the  rule 
rather  than  the  exception.  Nevertheless,  in  the  Prussian 
cities,  as  in  the  French,  the  policy  has  its  influence  in 
multiplying  candidatures  at  the  first  polling  ;  for  it  in- 
duces small  factions  to  put  forward  their  representatives 
on  this  occasion  even  though  there  be  no  reasonable  hope 
of  their  success. 

The  election  of  a  councillor  may  be  protested  by  any  Election 
qualified  voter  of  the  city,  no  matter  what  his  district  or  pro 
class.1     This  protest  may  take  the  form  of  complaint  re- 

1  Stfidteordnung,  §  27.     See  also  Entscheidungen  des  Oberverwaltungsgerichts, 
XVIII.  39-40. 


146 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


Infrequency 
of  protests. 


Influence  of 
political 
parties  in 
municipal 
elections. 


garding  irregularities  in  the  electoral  procedure,  or  of 
allegation  of  corrupt  practices  on  the  part  of  the  candi- 
date elected ;  but  it  must  be  lodged  with  the  appropriate 
authorities  within  ten  days  from  the  date  of  the  polling. 
Who  these  authorities  are,  whether  municipal  or  provin- 
cial, depends  upon  the  grounds  of  the  protest.1  If  im- 
portant irregularities  or  any  corrupt  practices  are  proved, 
the  reviewing  authorities  have  power  to  void  the  election 
and  to  order  it  contested  anew.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
however,  the  Prussian  municipal  elections  have  almost 
invariably  been  conducted  in  such  a  manner  as  to  afford 
little  basis  for  faultfinding.  There  is,  to  be  sure,  much 
complaint  that  the  system  of  open  voting  puts  a  premium 
upon  the  exercise  of  undue  influence  by  employers  over 
employed  ;  but  of  bribery,  personation,  repeating,  fraud, 
and  kindred  electoral  abuses  there  is  apparently  almost  no 
complaint  at  all.  The  absence  of  these  evils  is  due  partly 
to  the  simplification  of  electoral  machinery,  partly  to  the 
high  standing  of  election  officials,  partly  to  the  vigorous 
fashion  in  which  the  authorities  promptly  penalize  the 
slightest  sign  of  wrong-doing,  and  partly,  no  doubt,  to  the 
general  respect  for  law  and  regularity  which  characterizes 
the  whole  Prussian  people. 

Municipal  party  organization  in  the  cities  of  Prussia 
does  not,  unfortunately,  lend  itself  to  description  in 
general  terms.  Without  accepting  unreservedly  the  re- 
mark of  Heine  that  a  dozen  Germans  are  likely  to  repre- 
sent a  dozen  political  factions  for  the  reason  that  no  two 
are  certain  to  think  alike  on  matters  concerning  the  body 
politic,  one  may,  nevertheless,  be  sure  that  the  spirit  of 
political  independence  is  strongly  intrenched  in  German 
character,  and  that  this  independence  has  apparently 


1  For  an  elaboration  of  this  point,  see  Jebens,  Die  Stadtverordneten,  104-126 ; 
and  Oertel,  Die  Stadteordnung,  130-137. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  PRUSSIAN  CITIES  147 

proved  an  insuperable  obstacle  to  party  discipline  in  im- 
perial, state,  and  local  politics  alike.  In  none  of  these  three 
spheres  of  political  action  does  one  encounter  that  group- 
ing of  voters  into  the  ranks  of  two  preponderating  political 
parties  which  one  finds  in  England '  or  the  United  States. 
On  the  contrary,  there  are,  in  imperial  politics  at  least, 
four  important  political  factions,  with  several  minor  Partydecen- 
groups ;  and  only  by  the  skilful  arrangement  of  coalitions 
between  two  or  more  of  these  various  factions  can  the 
affairs  of  the  empire  be  carried  on.  In  Prussian  national 
politics  the  decentralization  is  perhaps  not  so  marked ;  for 
here  the  franchise  system  deprives  the  more  radical  ele- 
ment among  the  voters  of  any  important  representation 
in  the  legislative  organs.  In  the  municipal  elections  the 
situation  seems  to  represent  a  stage  between  the  two  fore- 
going: the  multiplication  of  political  groups  is  not  so 
great  as  in  imperial  politics  and  somewhat  greater  than 
in  national. 

Party  lines  in  the  three  realms  of  political  activity  are,  Relation  of 
therefore,  not  exactly  identified.     The  ultra-conservatives  n™tio"ai,' 
or  reactionaries,  who  bulk  large  in  the  political  affairs  of  the  an.d  mu°ici- 

pal  parties. 

empire,  play  but  an  insignificant  role  in  local  elections 
in  most  of  the  large  cities;  on  the  other  hand,  the  ad- 
vanced radicals,  or  Social  Democrats,  who  form  a  party 
of  little  or  no  significance  in  state  politics,  have  shown 
great  strength  in  municipal  campaigns.  Indeed,  the  plat- 
forms of  the  various  municipal  groups  represent  different 
attitudes  on  issues  which  are  mainly  municipal  but  inci- 
dentally national  or  imperial.  In  many  of  the  larger  Prus- 
sian cities  a  decided  majority  of  the  voters  seem,  in  imperial 
matters,  to  belong  to  the  Social  Democratic  party ;  for 
under  the  system  of  manhood  suffrage  a  majority  of  the 
members  sent  by  these  cities  to  the  imperial  Reichstag  have 
been  members  of  this  faction.  In  the  municipal  councils,  on 


148  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

the  other  hand,  a  large  majority  of  the  councillors  have,  ow- 
ing to  the  operation  of  the  three-class  system,  represented 
the  various  wings  or  sections  of    the  Liberal  party.     In 
The  three     fact,  one  might  almost  range  the  membership  of  a  typical 
foSioruTin     Prussian    city    council    into    three    general   groups,  —  the 
city  politics.  more  conservative  Liberals  (National  Liberalen),  the  more 
advanced  Liberals  (fortschrittliche  Partei),  and  the  Social 
Democrats.     The  councillors  of  the  first  two  groups  are 
selected  largely  by  the  first  and  second  classes  of  voters ; 
but  advanced  Liberals  are  frequently  chosen  by  the  third 
class  as  well.     Among  the  representatives  of    this   third 
class  there  are  usually  a  good  many  Social  Democrats ;  but 
in  no  important  Prussian  city  have  they  as  yet  formed 
a  majority  of  the  councillors. 

Attitude  of  In  their  attitude  toward  general  municipal  policy  the 
toward  more  conservative  Liberals  do  not  differ  much  from  the 
questions  of  more  advanced.  Both  have  shown  themselves  friendly 

municipal 

policy.  to  the  municipalization  of  public  services  whenever  the 
advantages  of  this  policy  have  been  made  clear  by  direct 
reference  to  some  particular  service.  Without  making 
a  shibboleth  of  municipal  socialism,  the  two  factions  have 
usually  found  a  common  ground  in  the  pursuance  of  a 
progressive  municipal  policy  which  neither  runs  riot  along 
the  paths  of  radicalism  nor  balks  at  such  interference 
with  vested  interests  as  the  welfare  of  the  city  may  seem 

The  Social  to  demand.  The  Social  Democrats,  on  the  other  hand, 
are  not  held  together  by  any  common  bond  in  regard 
to  local  issues ;  their  activity  in  local  politics  represents 
much  the  same  attitude  of  irreconcilability  toward  the 
current  order  of  things  that  is  taken  by  them  in  the  im- 
perial legislature.  They  oppose  the  existing  municipal 
organization  as  unrepresentative  and  undemocratic,  and 
insist  that  every  voter  have  an  equal  share  in  the  admin- 
istration of  the  city's  affairs,  to  the  end  that  municipal 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  PRUSSIAN  CITIES  149 

policy  may  embody  the  wishes. of  a  numerical  majority 
of  the  electorate.  This  attitude  is  prompted  largely  by 
the  fact  that,  under  present  arrangements,  there  is  no 
reasonable  probability  that  their  party  programme,  which 
goes  the  whole  way  in  the  direction  of  municipal  social- 
ism and  all  that  this  implies,  will  secure  official  adoption 
even  though  it  may  command  the  allegiance  of  a  large 
majority  of  the  municipal  voters. 

The  machinery  of  party  organization  in  the  Prussian  Party 
cities,  and  indeed  throughout  the  German  Empire,  is  on  mac  iery' 
the  whole  elementary  and  crude.  Each  faction  has  its 
local  society,  or  Verein,  —  sometimes  one  for  each  election 
district,  but  more  often  one  for  several ;  and  the  work 
of  these  various  bodies  is  supervised  in  somewhat  loose 
fashion  by  a  central  committee,  which  may  have  juris- 
diction over  all  the  local  organizations  of  the  city  or 
over  only  a  part  of  them.1  In  these  bodies,  which  are 
political  clubs  rather  than  partisan  organizations  in  the 
American  sense,  voters  are  regularly  enrolled  and  usually 
pay  a  small  membership  fee.  Their  activities  are  social  The  political 
and  intellectual  as  well  as  political ;  for  in  the  intervals 
between  the  electoral  campaigns  they  have  their  regular 
meetings,  in  the  programmes  of  which  matters  political 
receive  minor  attention.  Most  of  these  political  clubs 
have  no  permanent  headquarters,  the  members  meeting 
monthly  or  oftener  in  some  convenient  beer-hall ;  a  few, 
however,  maintain  regular  club-rooms,  with  permanent  sec- 
retaries in  charge.  In  any  case  each  club  has  its  chair- 
man and  its  secretary,  elected  annually  by  the  members.2 

1  Groups  of  these  district  organizations  (Bezirksvereine)  are  sometimes  fed- 
erated, with  a  committee  of  direction,  — as,  for  example,  the  "Bund  der  frei- 
sinnigen  Bezirksvereine  des  Ostens  und  Nordostens"  in  Berlin. 

2  Further  details  regarding  the  organization  and  activities  of  well-known  and 
somewhat  typical  clubs  may  be  found  in  Jahresbericht  des  fortschrittlichen 
Vereins  "  Waldeck"  (Berlin,  1907)  ;  in  Geschichte  des  fortschrittlichen  Vereins 


150 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


Nature  of 

their 

activities. 


Their 

slender 

resources. 


Character 
of  the  men 
elected  to 
the  council. 


On  the  approach  of  an  election,  whether  imperial,  na- 
tional, or  municipal,  the  clubs  begin  to  show  an  increase 
in  political  activity ;  the  members  devote  their  meetings 
to  the  discussion  of  political  matters,  and  the  discussions 
turn  to  the  question  of  candidates.  In  the  case  of  a  local 
election  a  club  frequently  selects  a  candidate  from  among 
its  own  members;  but  sometimes  it  is  deemed  more  ad- 
visable to  pledge  the  club's  support  to  an  aspirant  whose 
candidature  has  been  inspired  by  some  other  interest  or 
organization.  In  this  particular,  as  in  many  other  mat- 
ters connected  with  the  work  of  the  local  party  organiza- 
tions, there  is  no  approach  to  uniformity ;  in  fact,  there 
is  in  the  system  itself  none  of  that  machine-like  symmetry 
and  efficiency  which  characterize  the  local  party  mechan- 
isms of  American  cities.  As  the  clubs  comprise  within 
their  membership  but  a  small  percentage  of  the  total 
electorate,  they  do  not  necessarily  represent  the  wishes 
of  their  respective  parties.  They  possess  no  substantial 
monetary  resources  for  use  in  the  election  campaigns, 
and  they  have  no  very  effective  weapons  of  party  discipline  ; 
for  the  average  Prussian  voter,  though  not  adverse  to 
advice  and  suggestions  from  his  political  leaders,  is  at 
best  none  too  docile,  and  is  apt  to  resent  dictation.  The 
local  party  organizations  seek,  therefore,  to  influence 
rather  than  to  control  candidacy,  a  feature  in  which 
they  differentiate  themselves  most  clearly  from  their 
prototypes  in  American  cities, 

As  to  the  general  character  and  standing  of  the  men 
elected  to  the  Prussian  municipal  councils  under  this 
system  there  is  and  can  be  but  one  opinion.  Among  the 
local  elective  organs  of  the  various  countries  of  Europe 
and  America  none  have  been  more  successful  than  the 


"  Waldeck"  (ed.  Hugo  Reinwald,  Berlin,  1903);  or  in  Jahresbericht  des  frei- 
sinnigen  Vereins  der  Halleschen-Thor-Bezirke  (Berlin,  1907). 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  PRUSSIAN  CITIES  151 

Prussian  city  councils  in  securing  as  members  men 
of  ability,  integrity,  and  general  prestige.  It  is  well 
within  the  truth  to  say  that  in  a  city  like  Berlin  the 
councillors  are  chosen  from  among  the  very  best  citizens 
of  the  capital ; 1  that  they  form,  for  the  most  part,  a  well- 
selected  elite  drawn  from  the  professional,  mercantile, 
and  academic  circles  of  the  population ;  that,  in  short, 
they  represent,  not  the  hasty  and  transitory  judgments 
of  the  masses,  but  the  best  business  sense  of  the  com- 
munity.2 Indeed,  from  whatever  point  of  view  the  Ger- 
man and  American  city  councils  are  compared,  they  differ 
in  nothing  more  than  in  the  caliber  of  the  men  who  make 
up  their  membership.  So  striking  is  the  difference  between 
them  in  this  respect  that  one  is  led  to  ask  why  it  is  that 
men  whose  private  interests  are  so  important  should  be 
willing  to  give  to  the  German  municipality  so  much  of  their 
time  and  thought  without  any  direct  remuneration  and 
without  the  slightest  indirect  possibility  of  financial 
recoupment ;  for  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  by  far  the  larger 
number  of  the  councillors  accept  the  duties  of  their  office 
at  a  substantial  sacrifice  of  their  private  interests.  Why 
the  experience  of  German  and  American  cities  in  this 
matter  has  been  so  different,  is  in  truth  a  fair  question.3 

Undoubtedly  this  success  of  the  Prussian  city  in  attract-  Reasons  for 

J  the  high 

ing  men  of  unusual  ability  and  influence  into  the  ranks  standard. 

1  The  list  of  members,  with  occupations,  may  be  found  in  Personal-Nach- 
weisung  der  Berliner  Gemeinde-Verwaltung  (Berlin,  1908).     Eighty-five  coun- 
cillors are  reported  as  engaged  in  business,  twenty-eight  as  "  rentiers,"  seven 
as  lawyers,  six  as  physicians,  and  two  as  teachers. 

2  This  opinion  is  based  on  the  writer's  own  observation.    It  is  fair  to  add,  how- 
ever, that  some  of  the  more  progressive  councillors  complain  vigorously  of  the 
narrow-mindedness  and  ultra-conservatism  of  their  colleagues.     "Die  grosse 
Mehrheit  sind  Spiessbiirger  in   Reinkultur,"   is  the  opinion  that  one  of  the 
liberal  leaders  expressed  to  me  concerning  his  fellow-members  of  the  council. 

8  On  this  point  see  Professor  F.  W.  Taussig's  interesting  and  suggestive 
article  on  "Love  of  Wealth  and  the  Public  Service,"  in  Atlantic  Monthly 
(March,  1906),  XCVII.  289-300. 


152 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


Social 
influences. 


The  three- 


property  re- 
quirements. 


of  its  council  is  attributable  to  several  reasons,  chief 
among  which  may  be  the  fact  that  in  Prussia  the  social 
prestige  which  attaches  to  public  service  of  any  sort  is 
greater  than  it  is  in  any  other  country.  The  national 
authorities  have  for  many  years  assiduously  fostered  the 
doctrine  that  those  who  serve  the  state  in  either  military 
or  civil  offices  should  take  rank  in  the  social  scale  above 
the  ordinary  layman,  no  matter  what  the  wealth  or  busi- 
ness standing  of  the  latter  may  be.  No  one  who  is  at 
all  familiar  with  the  structure  of  Prussian  society  need 
be  reminded  of  the  large  part  which  this  policy  has  played 
in  securing  both  for  the  army  and  for  the  national  civil 
service  or  bureaucracy  the  most  promising  element  of  the 
rising  population.  This  general  attractiveness  of  the  pub- 
lic service  has  permeated  from  the  state  to  the  city ;  and 
the  influence  which  it  has  had  in  leading  men  of  wealth 
and  prominence  to  welcome  the  opportunity  of  a  seat  at 
the  council-board  can  hardly  be  overestimated.  Again, 
the  three-class  system  of  voting,  and  the  requirement  that 
at  least  one-half  of  the  council's  membership  shall  be 
made  up  of  house-owners,  have  no  doubt  contributed  to 
the  maintenance  of  the  standard.  There  are  probably  in 
every  city  a  good  many  useful  men  who  will  readily  seek 
office  at  the  hands  of  their  own  business  associates,  but 
who  would  hesitate  to  ask  the  suffrages  of  the  masses. 
To  such  the  three-class  system  gives  just  the  opportunity 
that  is  desired  ;  for  those  Prussian  councillors  who  rep- 
resent the  first  and  second  classes  of  voters  are  virtually 
chosen  by  an  electoral  elite  to  which  they  are  attached  by 
much  more  than  a  mere  political  bond.  At  the  same 
time,  it  is  plain  that  the  three-class  system  is  not  the 
only  contributing  factor  to  the  high  personnel  of  public 
service;  for  in  Bavaria,  Saxony,  and  the  other  German 
states  the  readiness  of  the  best  citizens  to  serve  the 


THE   GOVERNMENT  OF  PRUSSIAN  CITIES  153 

municipality  at  a  personal  sacrifice  is  just  as  marked 
as  in  Prussia,  though  no  one  of  these  states  has  adopted 
the  three-class  system  or  any  scheme  of  voting  akin  to 
it. 

Other  circumstances  that  probably  combine  to  eliminate,  other 
in  the  German  cities,  many  of    the    obstacles  which    in  tending'to 
the  United  States    tend  to  deter  men   of    high  standing  "»"***** th<> 

5    standard. 

from  entering  the  municipal  service  may  be  found  in 
the  long  terms  which  councillors  serve,1  in  the  reasonable 
certainty  of  reelection  which  they  enjoy,  the  absence  of 
any  regular  system  of  caucuses  or  primaries,  the  decen- 
tralization of  parties  and  hence  the  greater  stress  upon 
the  personal  qualities  of  candidates,  the  small  expense  of 
an  election  campaign,  and  the  decorum  and  entire  fairness 
with  which  an  election  is  conducted.  Such  advantages, 
in  addition  to  the  social  prestige  which  attends  the  tenure 
of  public  office,  may  serve  to  attract  the  man  of  public 
spirit  who  is  willing  to  make  some  sacrifice  of  his  own 
personal  interests  for  the  good  of  the  community ;  but  to 
the  man  who  seeks  office  for  his  own  profit  and  advan- 
tage the  post  of  councillor  in  a  German  city  presents  little 
attraction,  for  the  councilman  receives  no  compensation, 
has  little  patronage,  and  can  put  no  sources  of  profit  in  the 
paths  of  his  friends.  There  are  points  of  view  from  which 
the  Prussian  system  may  be  criticised  as  unsatisfactory ; 
and,  in  its  method  of  grouping  voters  into  classes  which  are 
broadly  distinguished  by  differences  in  wealth  as  well  as  in 
several  other  particulars,  it  will  probably  impress  many  as 
violating  some  of  the  most  elementary  canons  of  democratic 
government.  That  the  plan  has,  however,  served  to  bring 
into  the  service  of  the  cities  a  body  of  men  who,  for  devo- 

1  In  the  present  Berlin  council  there  are  sixteen  members  who  have  served 
for  more  than  twenty  years  each,  and  fifty  who  have  each  had  more  than  ten 
years  of  service. 


154 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


Compulsory 
service  not 
a  feature  of 
any  im- 
portance. 


The  council 
at  work. 


Internal  or- 
ganization. 


tion  to  the  public  interest  and  for  soundness  of  business 
judgment,  are  not  surpassed  by  the  membership  of  any 
municipal  organ  in  any  other  country,  is  beyond  all 
reasonable  question. 

The  high  quality  of  the  men  selected  as  councillors  is 
sometimes  attributed  to  the  fact  that,  when  a  Prus- 
sian citizen  is  elected  to  membership  in  the  council,  he 
is  legally  under  obligation  to  accept  the  post.  The  mu- 
nicipal code  does,  it  is  true,  provide  that  a  councillor-elect 
shall  be  mulcted  in  a  heavy  fine  if  he  refuses  to  serve  his 
term ; 1  but  it  may  be  doubted  whether  this  formal  regula- 
tion has  had  much  influence.  The  sanction  of  public  opin- 
ion would  probably  have  availed  sufficiently  without  any 
legal  provision ;  for  the  doctrine  that  the  opportunity 
of  holding  public  office  is  an  honor  not  to  be  declined 
by  any  citizen  is  very  well  established  in  the  Prussian 
mind.  It  may  be  noted,  moreover,  that  compulsory 
civic  service  is  not  peculiar  to  the  German  states ;  it 
exists  in  some  other  continental  countries,  and  even  in 
England. 

Immediately  after  the  elections  the  new  councillors  are 
sworn  to  the  proper  performance  of  their  functions  and 
the  council  proceeds  with  its  organization.  It  elects, 
from  among  its  own  members,  a  permanent  chairman 
(Vorsitzender)  and  a  substitute  chairman  (Stellvertreter), 
each  of  whom  serves  for  a  single  year,  but  may  be  re- 
elected  and  is,  indeed,  usually  chosen  for  two  or  more 
successive  years.  It  also  selects  its  secretary  or  clerk 
(Schriftfuhrer),  who  may  or  may  not  be  one  of  its  own 
members ; 2  if  he  is  not  a  member,  the  choice  must  be 


1  Stadteordnung,  §  74. 

2  Stadteordnung,  §  38.    These  officers,  together  with  such  additional  members 
(Beisitzer)  as  may  be  chosen  iu  the  same  manner,  form  the  bureau,  or  executive 
committee  of  the  council. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  PRUSSIAN  CITIES  155 

confirmed  by  the  administrative  board,  or  Magistrat.  The 
selection  of  these  council  officers  is  made  by  means  of  a 
secret  ballot,  and  in  the  first  instance  an  absolute  ma- 
jority of  votes  is  necessary  to  an  election.  If  this  be 
not  had  by  any  candidate,  a  second  vote  is  taken  upon 
the  four  names  which  stood  highest  on  the  first  ballot ; 
and  if  no  one  of  these  four  receives  a  clear  majority,  a 
third  vote  is  taken  upon  the  two  names  ranking  highest 
on  the  second  ballot.1  All  officers  of  the  council  other 
than  the  three  foregoing  —  such  as  clerks,  messengers, 
and  so  on  —  are  appointed  by  the  Magistrat,  and  hence 
rank  as  regular  municipal  employees.2 

The  council  frames  its  own  rules  of  procedure  (Ge-  Rules  of 
schaftsordnung) ;  but  such  rules  must  be  approved  by  the  Procedure- 
Magistrat,  and,  in  the  event  of  any  disagreement  between 
the  two  bodies,  the  point  must  be  decided  by  the  higher  local 
authorities.  Every  council  has  its  code  of  procedure, 
with  rules  that  fix  the  place,  date,  and  hours  of  regular 
meetings,  set  forth  the  order  in  which  business  is  to  be 
taken  up,  and  define  the  powers  and  duties  of  the  chair- 
man, vice-chairman,  secretary,  and  other  officials.8  Sub- 
stantially the  same  general  rules  are  followed  in  all  the 
larger  cities,  but  on  many  minor  points  the  procedure 
differs.  The  rules  usually  followed  by  public  bodies  in 
Germany  are  on  the  whole  somewhat  simpler  than  those 
commonly  observed  in  the  United  States,  and  in  general 
lend  themselves  more  readily  to  the  prompt  despatch  of 
business.  A  useful  practice,  which  obtains  in  both 
France  and  Germany,  is  that  of  referring  complicated  and 

1  StSdteordnung,  §§  36,  38.  2  Stadteordnung,  §  48. 

3  A  typical  code  of  these  rules,  the  "  Geschaftsordnung  fiir  die  Stadtver- 
ordneten-Versammlung  zu  Charlottenburg,"  may  be  found  in  Jebens's  Die 
Stadtverordneten,  347-360.  The  "  Geschaftsordnung  fiir  die  Stadtverordneten- 
Versammlung  zu  Berlin"  (adopted  December  8,  1895)  is  published  in  pamphlet 
form. 


156 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


Meetings. 


difficult  problems,  especially  those  connected  with  juris- 
diction, to  individual  members  of  the  council  for  investi- 
gation and  report.  Such  designated  reporters  (rappor- 
teurs) perform  much  of  the  work  of  examining  the  law, 
the  precedents,  and  the  facts  relating  to  intricate  ques- 
tions, thereby  greatly  relieving  the  pressure  that  would 
ordinarily  fall  upon  the  various  standing  committees,  and 
at  the  same  time  facilitating  prompt  action. 

In  the  larger  cities  the  council  ordinarily  meets  once  a 
week,  except  during  the  summer  months.  Additional 
meetings  are  summoned  by  the  chairman  whenever  they 
are  needed ;  and  in  the  period  of  the  year  during  which 
the  annual  budget  is  under  consideration  they  are  some- 
times needed  often.  The  Berlin  council  meets  every  Thurs- 
day afternoon  (except  during  the  months  of  July  and 
August),  and  the  sessions  ordinarily  continue  from  five  till 
eight  o'clock  ;  but  not  infrequently  the  pressure  of  business 
prolongs  the  sitting  till  midnight.  In  the  practice  of  hold- 
ing short  meetings  at  frequent  intervals  the  Germans  pur- 
sue the  system  in  vogue  in  England  and  the  United  States 
as  distinguished  from  that  followed  by  the  city  councils  of 
France  and  the  other  Latin  countries,  where  sessions  are 
held  at  considerable  intervals  and  are  sometimes  prolonged 
No  strict  over  several  weeks.  The  central  authorities  in  Prussia 
oTthe  scope  nave  set  no  limits  to  the  frequency  and  duration  of  council 
deliberations,  and  have  not  thought  it  necessary,  as  have 
the  authorities  in  France,  to  make  any  hard  and  fast  rules 
as  to  the  topics  which  may  be  discussed.  The  Prussian 
council  itself,  through  its  rules  and  its  chairman,  controls 
the  scope  of  its  own  discussions  without  interference  by 
the  higher  powers.  Unlike  the  French  council,  also,  it  is 
not  subject  to  suspension  or  dissolution  by  decree  of  any 
subordinate  administrative  authority,  although  in  the  last  re- 
sort a  Prussian  city  council  may  be  dissolved  by  royal  decree. 


Frequent 

short 

sessions. 


of  its  delib- 
erations. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  PRUSSIAN  CITIES  157 

The  council  usually  meets  at  the  city  hall  (Rathaus) ;  Members  of 
and  in  the  council-room  are  also  provided  accommodations  ^at^present 
for  the  members  of  the  administrative  board,  or  Magistrat,  at  c^wcQ 

7    sessions. 

who  have  a  right  to  attend  all  council-meetings  and  to 
speak  upon  any  question  under  consideration,  but  not  to 
vote.  At  every  session  there  are  some  members  of  the 
Magistrat ;  and  these  may  be  interpellated  or  called  upon 
by  any  councillor  present  for  information  upon  any  matter 
within  his  departmental  jurisdiction.  In  fact,  almost  every 
important  proposal  which  comes  to  the  council  from  the 
Magistrat  is  supported  at  the  council-meeting  by  one  or 
more  of  those  members  of  the  Magistrat  who  may  happen 
to  be  most  directly  concerned.  The  meetings  are  ordi-  Meetings  are 
narily  open  to  the  public ;  but  secret  or  executive  sessions  pu 
may  be  held  if  necessary,  and  in  some  cities  they  are  not  at 
all  uncommon.1  In  the  larger  cities  considerable  public  in- 
terest is  manifested  in  the  proceedings  of  the  council ;  and, 
when  questions  of  importance  are  under  discussion  at  open 
meetings,  this  interest  is  shown  by  the  attendance  of  many 
spectators. 

Before  every  council-meeting  in  a  large  city  a  printed  The  docket, 
statement  of  the  business  which  is  to  come  before  the 
councillors  is  sent  to  each  member.  This  statement  (Vor- 
lage)  is  made  up  for  the  most  part  of  proposals  which  are 
to  be  laid  before  the  council  by  the  Magistrat,  and  is  ac- 
companied by  such  statistical  and  other  informational  data 
as  are  likely  to  prove  of  service  to  the  councillors.  An  ex- 
amination of  these  dockets  shows  that  most  of  the  business 
which  comes  up  in  the  council  is  prepared  by  the  Magis- 
trat, and  that  the  latter  takes  unusual  pains  to  lay  before 
the  council,  and  through  it  before  the  public,  full  details 

1  During  1905  the  Berlin  council  held  sixty-seven  sessions,  from  no  less 
than  twenty-nine  of  which  the  public  were  excluded.  These  executive  sessions 
were  for  the  most  part  very  short,  however,  and  dealt  chiefly  with  matters  of  a 
personal  nature. 


158 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


Methods  of 
despatching 
business. 


The  council 
an  organ  of 
delibera- 
tion. 


Council 
committees. 


regarding  all  the  propositions  submitted.1  When  a  project 
has  been  approved  by  the  Magistrat,  it  is  transmitted  to 
the  chairman  of  the  council,  who,  before  presenting  it  to 
the  latter  body,  submits  it  to  the  appropriate  council  com- 
mittee. If  the  matter  be  of  minor  consequence,  it  is  some- 
times referred  to  some  individual  councillor  instead,  who 
prepares  himself  to  discuss  the  proposal  when  it  comes  up. 
The  items  of  business  on  the  council  docket  are  taken  up 
and  disposed  of  in  regular  order,  and  more  slowly  than  they 
would  be  dealt  with  by  an  American  municipal  body ;  for 
in  Prussia,  and  especially  in  the  larger  cities,  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  council  are  conducted  with  a  good  deal  of  for- 
mality. The  speeches  are  frequently  of  considerable  length 
and  often  give  evidence  of  careful  preparation ;  indeed,  the 
meetings  of  the  Berlin  council  have  at  times  assumed  all 
the  dignity  and  seriousness  of  a  parliamentary  body.  The 
municipal  council,  it  should  be  remembered,  is  essen- 
tially a  deliberative  rather  than  an  administrative  body, 
a  fact  which  its  members  seem  consistently  to  recognize. 
Its  main  business  is  to  discuss  proposals  from  every  point 
of  view,  and  to  offer  suggestions  and  criticisms  rather  than 
to  hurry  matters  to  any  definite  conclusion.  In  fact,  the 
somewhat  leisurely  way  in  which  it  proceeds  with  its  busi- 
ness has  sometimes  given  rise  to  unfavorable  comment  on 
the  part  of  the  administrative  officials ;  but,  so  long  as  the 
Prussian  cities  possess  a  powerful,  efficient,  and  prompt  ad- 
ministrative body  in  the  Magistrat,  the  plodding  methods 
of  the  council  need  scarcely  give  rise  to  any  serious  mis- 
givings. 

The  Prussian  city  council  ordinarily  has  a  small  num- 
ber of  standing  committees,  chief  among  which  is  one 

1  The  "  Vorlagen  fur  die  Stadtverordneten-Versammlung  zu  Berlin"  for  the 
meeting  of  June  26,  1906,  which  I  have  selected  at  random  from  the  files  in  the 
Berlin  city  hall,  contains  forty  items  of  business,  which,  with  the  accompanying 
data,  cover  twenty-seven  printed  pages. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  PRUSSIAN  CITIES  159 

made  up  of  the  chairman,  the  vice-chairman,  and  three  or 
four  selected  councillors,  who  together  constitute  a  sort 
of  executive  committee  to  which  any  matter  may  be  re- 
ferred.1 All  the  committees  are  appointed  by  the  council 
itself ;  but  their  work,  which  consists  mainly  in  consider- 
ing and  reporting  upon  matters  before  they  come  up 
at  the  regular  council-meetings,  is  not  relatively  impor- 
tant, for  the  council  has  so  few  executive  powers  that 
it  is  loath  to  refer  its  duty  of  deliberation  to  small  com- 
mittees. It  is  true  that  much  of  the  city's  administrative 
work  is  performed  by  committees ;  but  it  is  by  joint  com- 
mittees (Deputationen)  composed  of  selected  members 
of  the  council  and  the  Magistrat.2  The  committees  of 
the  council  itself  do  not,  as  in  English  cities,  deal  with 
the  details  of  civic  administration ;  this  field  is  monopo- 
lized by  the  joint  committees  of  the  two  bodies. 

After  each  meeting  of  the  council  the  record  of  the  pro-  Minutes  and 
ceedings  (Protokoll)  is  signed  by  the  chairman  and  by  at  records- 
least  three  of  the  members  present.     All  the  resolutions 
are  transmitted  to  the  Magistrat,  unless  they  happen  to 
relate   to   matters  wholly  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
council,  —  and    of    this  kind  there  are  very  few.     It   is 
also    customary   in    the   larger   cities  to  issue  in  printed 
form    after   each    meeting   a    stenographic  report   of   the 
council's  proceedings,  a  copy  of   which  is  given  to  any 
citizen  who  applies  for  it.8 

The  powers  of  the  municipal   council  are  not  defined  Powers  of 
with  any  exactness  by  the  provisions  of  the  City  Govern- 
ment Act  of  1853.     On  the  contrary,  after  explicitly  com- 

1  This  practice  is  not  followed  by  the  Berlin  council.  It  was  abolished  by 
that  body  many  years  ago.  2  See  below,  pp.  197  ff. 

8  In  Berlin  this  report  is  entitled  "Amtlicher  stenograph ischer  Bericht  ftir 
die  Sitzung  der  Stadtverordneten-Versammlung,  hgbn.  vom  Magistrat  zu  Ber- 
lin." All  official  announcements  are  also  printed  in  the  Gemeinde-Elatt,  or 
municipal  gazette. 


160 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


1.  Advice. 


2.  Appoint- 
ments. 


mitting  to  the  administrative  board  all  important  powers 
of  initiative  in  matters  of  local  policy,  as  well  as  all  impor- 
tant executive  functions,  the  enactment  somewhat  vaguely 
declares  that  the  council  shall  exercise  the  residuum  of 
municipal  power.1  The  council's  work,  in  short,  is  to 
deliberate  and  decide  (zu  beschliessen),  but  not  to  carry 
out  (ausfiihren)  its  decisions.2  This  separation  between 
the  organ  of  deliberation  and  the  organ  of  execution  is 
one  of  the  salient  characteristics  of  the  Prussian  municipal 
system ;  and  in  composition  and  procedure  the  two  bodies 
are  adapted  to  their  respective  tasks.8 

As  exercised  in  actual  practice,  the  powers  of  the  munici- 
pal council  may  be  summarized  under  four  main  heads  :  — 

1.  The  council  gives  its  advice  to  the  Magistrat,  or  to 
the  higher  authorities  of  the  district  or  the  province,  in  all 
cases  in  which  it  is  required  by  law  so  to  do,  and  on  such 
other  occasions  as  its  counsel  may  be  requested  in  the  proper 
way.     The  higher  authorities  are  not  under  obligation  to 
accept  the  advice  so  tendered ;  but  in  some  cases  they  are 
required  to  consult  the  council  before  taking  action.4 

2.  It  selects,  subject  to  confirmation  by  the  royal  gov- 
ernment, one    or   more   Biirgermeisters ;    it    also    chooses 
the  members  of  the  administrative  board,  or  Magistrat, 
and  appoints  the  citizen  deputies  (Burgerdeputirter)  who 
serve   on   the  various  joint   committees   (Deputationen).5 
These,  however,  are   the   only  officials  or  administrative 
authorities  that  it  may  select ;  all  the  regular  municipal 

1  "Die  Stadtverordneten-Versammlung  hat  liber  alle  Gemeinde-Angelegen- 
heiten  zu  beschliessen,  soweit  dieselben  nicht  ausschliesslich  dem  Magistrate 
tiberwiesen  sind  "  (Stadteordnung,  §  35). 

2  "Die  Stadtverordneten-Versammlung  darf  ihre  Beschlusse  in  keinem  Falle 
selbst  zur  Ausfuhrung  bringen  "  (Stadteordnung,  §  36). 

8  This  idea  is  clearly  brought  out  in  Kapplemann's  essay  on  "  Die  Verfassung 
und  Verwaltungsorganisation  der  preussischen  Stadte,"  in  Schriften  des  Ve.re.ins 
fur  Socialpolitik,  CXVII.  i.  1-92. 

1  Stadteordnung,  §  35.  5  Stadteordnung,  §  31. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  PRUSSIAN  CITIES  161 

employees,  from  the  heads  of  departments  downward,  are 
appointed  by  the  Biirgermeister,  the  Magistrat,  or  the 
higher  state  authorities. 

3.  It  considers  and  passes  upon  all  matters  submitted  3. 
to  it  by  the  administrative  board.     All  proposals,  large  tlon' 
and  small,   which  affect   general    municipal    policy   must 

be  laid  before  it ;  indeed,  as  its  records  show,  in  a  large 
city  like  Berlin  hundreds  of  matters  which  one  might 
almost  regard  as  of  very  minor  consequence  are  sub- 
mitted to  it  every  year.1  The  most  important  proposal 
that  comes  down  from  the  Magistrat  is,  of  course,  the 
annual  civic  budget,  which,  after  its  arrival,  engages  the  The  budget, 
attention  of  the  council  for  several  sessions.  Upon  this 
budget  it  deliberates  item  by  item,  with  full  power  to 
strike  out,  amend,  or  insert,  —  a  power,  it  may  be  added, 
which  the  councillors  exercise  with  considerable  freedom. 
The  annual  budget  does  not,  however,  become  effective 
until  it  has  been  agreed  to  by  the  Magistrat,  which  is  very 
conservative  in  giving  its  assent  to  any  increases  made  by 
the  council  in  the  list  of  appropriations.  When  the  two 
bodies  fail  to  agree  on  matters  connected  with  the  budget, 
or,  indeed,  upon  any  point  in  which  they  have  concur- 
rent powers,  the  solution  of  the  deadlock  is  sought  by 
the  appointment  of  a  joint  committee  of  conference ;  and 
if  this  committee  fails  to  effect  a  compromise  the  matter 
goes  to  the  appropriate  higher  authorities.2 

4.  Within  a  considerable  field  the  council  is  permitted  4.  initiation 
to  take  the  initiative  and  make  recommendations  to  the 
Magistrat.3     If  a  recommendation  should  meet  with  favor- 

1  In  Berlin  the  number  of  these  "  Magistratsvorlagen  "  sent  down  during  the 
year  1903  was  807  ;  during  1904,  799  ;  and  during  1905,  841.     See  Bericht  iiber 
die  Gemeinde-Verwaltung  der  Stadt  Berlin,  1901  bis  1905  (Berlin,  1907),  I.  11. 

2  Ordinarily  this  authority  is  the  district  council  (Bezirks-Ausschuss),  but 
in  the  case  of  Berlin  it  is  the  provincial  Oberprasident.    See  Ledermann,  Die 
Stadteordnung,  134-136.  *  Stadteordnung,  §  36. 


162 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


The  coun- 
cil's influ- 
ence on 
civic  policy. 


Disagree- 
ments 
between 
council  and 

Magistral. 


Powers  of 
the  higher 
authorities 
in  this 
event. 


able  consideration  in  the  latter  body  it  may  be  adopted 
and  put  into  force  directly,  or  it  may  be  elaborated  and 
sent  back  to  the  council. 

These  powers,  though  important,  are  not  sufficient  to 
give  the  council  rank  with  the  Magistrat  in  point  of 
actual  jurisdiction.  Through  its  scrutiny  of  the  budget, 
its  power  of  appointing  the  chief  administrative  officials, 
its  representation  on  the  various  joint  committees,  and  its 
concurrent  jurisdiction  in  matters  of  general  policy,  it 
exercises  what  the  City  Government  Act  intended  it  to 
exercise,  —  a  "  general  control  over  local  administration  "  ;  l 
but  this  control  is  not  very  strict  or  very  effectual,  for  the 
reason  that  the  Biirgermeister  and  members  of  the  Magis- 
trat, being  appointed  for  long  terms,  rarely  fail  to  assert 
a  considerable  degree  of  independence.2  Moreover,  when 
the  council  and  the  Magistrat  come  into  disagreement,  the 
higher  authorities  are  apt  to  decide  in  favor  of  the  latter. 
During  a  half-century  so  many  appeals  have,  of  course, 
been  made  to  these  authorities  that  their  decisions,  ren- 
dered from  time  to  time,  now  form  a  comprehensive 
collection  of  precedents  which,  taken  together,  serve 
to  weaken  the  council  not  a  little  in  its  relations  with  the 
administrative  board.  Notwithstanding  all  these  limita- 
tions, however,  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  the  Prussian 
city  council  is  a  negligible  factor  in  local  government ;  on 
the  contrary,  its  resolutions  and  opinions  are  never  without 
weight,  and  are  very  often  decisive  in  dictating  the  course 
to  be  pursued  by  the  administrative  authorities.8 

1  "Die  Stadtverordneten-Versammlung  kontrolirt  die  Verwaltung "  (Stadte- 
ordnung,  §  37) . 

2  The  council  cannot  remove  the  Biirgermeister  and  members  of  the  Magis- 
trat from  office ;  but  it  may  prefer  charges  of  malfeasance  or  non-feasance 
against  any  of  them,  and  the  higher  authorities  may,  after  hearings,  remove 
the  offenders  (Stadteordnung,  §  44). 

8  The  influence  and  powers  of  the  council  are  further  discussed  in  Jebens's 
Die  Stadtverordneten,  and  in  A.  Reimann's  Der  preussische  Stadtverordnete, 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  PRUSSIAN  CITIES  163 

The  other  organ  of  government  in  the  Prussian  city  is,  The  Magis- 
as  we  have  seen,  the  administrative  board,  or  Magistrat.1  trat' 
This  body  consists  of  a  Biirgermeister  (in  the  larger  cities 
of  two  Bin-germeisters 2)  and  a  number  of  members  (Stadt- 
rathe  or  Schoffen),  some  of  whom  are  paid  and  some 
unpaid.  In  the  smaller  cities  most  of  the  members  belong 
in  the  latter  category,  but  in  the  larger  ones  the  paid 
members  are  sometimes  as  numerous  as  their  unsalaried 
colleagues.8  The  number  of  unpaid  magistrates  which  itscompo- 
any  city  may  have  is  fixed  by  law  according  to  the  popu- 
lation of  the  municipality  ; 4  the  number  of  paid  members 
is  determined  by  the  city  council  subject  to  the  approval 
of  the  higher  authorities.  In  general,  the  total  member- 
ship of  the  administrative  board  is  from  about  one-quarter 
to  one-third  that  of  the  council.  Berlin,  for  example, 
with  a  council  of  one  hundred  and  forty-four  members, 
has  thirty-four  members  in  its  administrative  board,  includ- 
ing the  two  Biirgermeisters.5 

seine  Bechte  und  Pftichten  (Danzig,  1900).  An  older  work  which  still  possesses 
value  is  L.  Ebert's  Der  Stadtverordnete  im  Geltungsbereiche  der  Stadteordnung 
vom  SO.  Mai  1853  (Berlin,  1883). 

1  The  organization  of  this  body  is  provided  for  in  §§  29-34  of  the  Stadteordnung, 
and  its  powers  in  §  56.     Some  details  were  considered  in  Die  Instruktion  fur 
die   Stadt- Magistrate  vom  25.  Mai  1835,  issued  by  the  Prussian  government. 
In  their  present  amended  form,  these  may  be  found  in  Jebens's  Die  Instruk- 
tion fur  die  Stadt-Magistrate  vom  25.  Mai  1835  nach  neustem  Secht  (Berlin, 
1901). 

2  In  the  larger  cities  these  officers  are  called  "  Oberbiirgermeister  "  and  "  Biir- 
germeister," if  the  royal  permission  for  these  designations  has  been  obtained. 

8  Magdeburg,  for  example,  has  twelve  paid  and  fifteen  unpaid  members  in 
its  administrative  board  ;  Breslau  has  fourteen  paid  and  fifteen  unpaid  ;  Berlin 
has  seventeen  of  each  class.  The  figures  for  all  important  cities  may  be  found 
in  the  annual  volumes  of  the  Statistisches  Jahrbuch  deutscher  Stddte. 

4  Cities  of  10,000  to  30,000  population  have  six  unpaid  magistrates ;  those  of 
30,000  to  60,000  have  eight ;  those  of  60,000  to  100,000  have  ten  ;  and  those  of 
more  than  100,000  have  two  additional  unpaid  magistrates  for  every  additional 
60,000  (Stadteordnung,  §  29).  Exceptions  to  the  general  rule  have,  however, 
been  made  in  the  case  of  some  municipalities. 

6  For  further  information  concern  ing  the  personnel  of  the  administration,  see 
the  Statistisches  Jahrbuch  der  Stadt  Berlin  (published  annually). 


164 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


Term  of 

members 
and  method 
of  selection. 


Confirma- 
tion. 


Qualifica- 
tions of 
members. 


All  the  members  of  the  Magistral  are  named  by  the  city 
council.  The  paid  members  are  chosen  for  a  twelve-year 
term,  except  in  a  few  cities  where  the  tenure  is  for  life ; 
the  unpaid  members  are  selected  for  a  six-year  term  only, 
and  one-half  retire  triennially.  Both  paid  and  unpaid  mag- 
istrates are  reeligible,  and  under  ordinary  circumstances 
reelection  follows  as  a  matter  of  course.1  The  choice  is 
made  at  the  council-meeting  by  secret  ballot,  and  for  elec- 
tion on  the  first  vote  the  successful  candidate  must  obtain 
a  clear  majority.  If  this  be  not  had,  the  procedure  already 
detailed  is  followed.2  In  the  case  of  paid  magistrates,  the 
choice  of  the  council  must  be  confirmed  by  the  higher 
authorities  before  it  becomes  valid.8  If  confirmation  (Be- 
statigung)  is  refused,  the  council  proceeds  to  make  a  new 
selection  ;  if  it  should  decline  to  do  so,  the  higher  authorities 
may  temporarily  fill  the  post  on  their  own  initiative.4  As 
a  matter  of  practice,  however,  the  council  has  been  allowed 
to  exercise  almost  entire  freedom  in  the  matter  of  choos- 
ing its  paid  magistrates,  and  the  assent  of  the  higher 
authorities  has  rarely  been  withheld. 

Members  of  the  administrative  board  are  not  necessarily, 
or  even  usually,  chosen  by  the  council  from  within  its  own 
membership.  Unsalaried  magistrates  must  be  residents  of 
the  municipality  in  which  the}'  are  chosen  ;  but  the  paid 
officials  are  not  subject  to  this  requirement,  and  hence  are 
very  frequently  taken  from  the  service  of  some  other  city. 
No  one  may,  of  course,  be  a  member  of  the  council  and  the 

1  There  are  in  Berlin  at  the  present  time  three  members  of  the  Magistrat 
who  have  each  been  continuously  in  office  for  over  thirty-five  years.     The  aver- 
age term  of  the  present  board  is  slightly  over  thirteen  years.     See  Benefit  iiber 
die  Gemeinde-Verwaltung  der  Stadt  Berlin,  1901  bis  1905  (Berlin,  1907),  I.  3-4. 

2  Above,  p.  155. 

8  Ledermann,  Die  Stadteordnung ,  119-122. 

*  An  interesting  outline  of  the  development  of  this  right  of  confirmation,  with 
a  vigorous  criticism  of  it,  may  be  found  in  Hugo  Preuss's  Das  stadtische  Amts- 
recht  in  Preussen  (Berlin,  1902),  ch.  vii. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  PRUSSIAN  CITIES  165 

administrative  board  at  the  same  time,  and  no  persons 
who  are  immediate  relatives  may  be  members  of  the  re- 
spective bodies.  There  are  some  other  disqualifications 
provided  for  in  the  law,  mainly  against  state  officials, 
clergymen,  and  persons  connected  with  the  police  adminis- 
tration ;  but  on  the  whole  the  council  exercises  a  free 
hand  in  its  selection  of  magistrates.1 

The  paid  magistrates  are  professional  administrators  Paid  magis- 
chosen  for  their  special  skill,  who  give  their  whole  time 
and  energies  to  the  service  of  the  city  and  are  recom- 
pensed with  generous  stipends.  Their  salaries  vary  in 
amount  according  to  the  size  of  the  city  and  the  impor- 
tance of  the  work  which  they  are  required  to  perform  ;  but 
in  Berlin  the  paid  magistrates  get  from  twenty-one  hundred 
and  fifty  to  three  thousand  dollars  per  year.  Moreover,  in 
all  the  larger  cities  they  receive  pensions  when  they  retire 
from  the  service  of  the  municipality  :  after  a  single  twelve- 
year  term  a  magistrate  may  retire  on  half  pay,  or  at  the 
close  of  his  second  term  he  may  retire  on  full  salary.  It  is, 
therefore,  not  so  much  the  actual  salary  paid  as  it  is  the 
security  of  tenure  and  the  liberal  pension  on  retirement 
which  serve  to  make  the  post  of  paid  magistrate  in  a 
Prussian  city  attractive  to  men  of  administrative  skill  and 
experience. 

Every  paid  member  of  the  administrative  board  is  selected  Work  of  the 
because  of  his  special  aptitude  in  some  department  of  civic 
administration ;  and  each  is,  upon  election,  assigned  to  this 
particular  branch.  In  every  large  city,  for  example,  one 
paid  member  of  the  Magistrat  fills  the  post  of  Kammerer, 
or  head  of  the  city's  financial  affairs  ;  another  acts  as 
Syndikus,  or  head  of  the  legal  department ;  a  third  as 
Schulrat,  or  chief  of  the  local  system  of  primary  education; 
a  fourth  as  Baurat,  or  superintendent  of  the  city's  public 

1  Stadteordnung,  §  30. 


166 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


How  paid 
magistrates 
are  secured. 


Technical 
qualifica- 
tions de- 
manded. 


works ;  and  so  on.  One  has  the  system  of  poor  relief  in 
special  charge,  another  the  city's  sanitary  system,  another 
the  hospital  service.  Every  paid  member  is  assigned  to 
some  important  department,  the  minor  branches  being 
usually  looked  after  by  the  unpaid  members,  who  are, 
however,  sometimes  put  in  the  more  responsible  positions 
as  well. 

When  any  large  city  desires  to  add  to  the  number  of  its 
paid  magistrates,  or  to  fill  some  paid  post  in  the  adminis- 
trative board  which  may  have  become  vacant,  the  city 
council  has  to  find  some  one  who  possesses  the  particular 
qualifications  required.  The  usual  course  is  to  authorize  the 
Magistrat  to  advertise  the  fact  that  applications  for  appoint- 
ment to  the  office  will  be  received  and  considered,  the  ad- 
vertisement usually  stating  the  amount  of  salary  offered, 
the  provisions  in  regard  to  pension,  the  duties  to  be  per- 
formed, and  the  qualifications  expected.1  These  qualifica- 
tions differ,  of  course,  according  to  the  character  of  the  post 
to  be  filled.  Candidates  for  the  office  of  Syndikus  must 
have  had  a  legal  training ;  those  for  the  post  of  Schulrat 
must  be  university  graduates  ;  those  for  the  office  of  Baurat 
must  have  been  trained  in  general  engineering ;  and  no  one 

1  The  appended  advertisement,  translated  from  the  Gemeinde-Zeitung  of  July 
28,  1906,  is  typical :  — 

"NOTICE 

"  The  post  of  Syndikus  in  the  Magistrat  of  this  city  has  become  vacant.  The 
stipend  is  6000  marks  per  year  with  an  increase  of  600  marks  every  three  years 
until  the  maximum  of  9000  marks  is  reached.  The  appointment  is  for  life  ; 
and  provision  is  made  for  a  pension  on  retirement  after  long  service,  as  well  as 
for  the  granting  of  an  annuity  to  the  widow  or  orphans  of  a  deceased  incumbent 
of  the  post.  The  Syndikus  is  expected  to  preside  in  the  Industrial  and  Mercan- 
tile Court  (Gewerbe-  und  Kaufmannsgericht)  and  is  intrusted  with  a  general 
supervision  over  the  legal  affairs  of  the  city.  Candidates  who  have  passed  their 
second  legal  examination  and  who  have  had  successful  administrative  experience 
are  requested  to  submit  applications  accompanied  by  testimonials  and  other 
suitable  documents  to  the  city  clerk  before  August  20. 

' '  Frankfort-on-the-Main, 


"July  17,  1906. 


"THE  MAGISTRAT." 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  PRUSSIAN  CITIES  167 

may  hope  for  appointment  to  the  office  of  Sanitatsrat  who 
has  not  a  special  knowledge  of  sanitary  science.  Applica- 
tions are  received  by  the  Magistrat  and  are  transmitted  by 
it  to  the  council,  usually  with  recommendations.  Some- 
times they  come  from  unpaid  magistrates,  occasionally  from 
persons  in  civilian  life,  and  frequently,  in  a  large  city,  from 
men  who  have  filled  similar  posts  in  smaller  municipalities 
and  who  think  that  their  work  entitles  them  to  promo- 
tion. In  any  case  all  the  applications  are  carefully  con- 
sidered, the  records  and  qualifications  of  candidates  are 
examined,  and  the  list  is  narrowed  down  to  two  or  three 
names  before  the  council  as  a  whole  is  called  upon  to  make 
its  selection.  The  Prussian  city,  in  short,  selects  its  high- 
est officials  by  substantially  the  same  procedure  that  is  fol- 
lowed by  any  well-organized  business  corporation.  The 
council  aims  to  obtain  the  highest  skill  which  the  stipend 
will  command,  and  in  making  its  choice  it  disregards  al- 
most every  consideration  except  the  actual  capabilities  of 
the  candidates  as  shown  by  their  attainments  and  records. 
Partisan  interests  play  practically  no  part  in  the  selection,  Absence  of 
—  except,  perhaps,  that  an  applicant  who  is  known  tivesin'the0" 
to  be  an  active  Social  Democrat  would  in  all  probability  8election- 
find  this  fact  very  much  against  him,  for  even  were  he 
selected  by  the  council  the  higher  authorities  would  almost 
certainly  refuse  to  confirm  the  choice.  On  the  other  hand, 
though  offensive  partisanship  may  bar  a  man  from  appoint- 
ment, partisan  services,  no  matter  how  valuable,  will  never 
of  themselves  suffice  to  dictate  his  selection. 

The  unpaid  magistrates  are  not  chosen  for  special  apti-  Unpaid 

.    .  <!•'..•  magistrates. 

tude  in  particular  branches  of  municipal  administration, 
but  for  their  general  administrative  interest  and  capabili- 
ties. The  law  prescribes  no  qualification  for  their  selec- 
tion save  that  they  shall  be  residents  of  the  city ;  but  the 
council  usually  chooses  them  from  the  ranks  of  its  own 


168  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

members.  Not  infrequently,  however,  it  goes  outside  and 
selects  successful  business  men  who  may  have  had  very 
little  administrative  experience.  As  the  standard  set  is 
very  high,  and  as  acceptance  of  the  post  usually  entails  a 
personal  sacrifice,  the  councils  have  not  always  found  it 
easy  to  secure  the  men  they  want ;  still,  their  success  has 
been  remarkable  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  office  de- 
mands most  of  the  incumbent's  time  without  affording 
him  any  remuneration  whatever.  In  a  large  city  like 
Berlin  it  takes  almost  the  entire  time  of  the  men  selected ; 
hence  only  men  of  means  and  leisure  can  afford  to  serve. 
It  is  true  that,  according  to  the  provisions  of  the  Prussian 
law,  any  citizen  who  is  chosen  as  an  unpaid  member  of 
the  administrative  board  must  accept  the  appointment 
and  serve  at  least  three  years  or  else  pay  a  considerable 
fine.  This  provision  is,  however,  of  little  advantage  to 
the  council ;  for  the  average  appointee  would  find  it  more 
economical  to  pay  this  fine  over  and  over  again  than  to 
give  up  to  the  city  the  time  which  the  duties  of  the  office 
require.  The  truth  of  the  situation  is  that  the  post  is 
highly  attractive  to  prominent  citizens  who  possess  the 
leisure,  the  means,  and  the  taste  for  administration.  The 
same  considerations  which  render  it  easy  to  secure  a  high 
class  of  men  in  the  city  councils  operate  with  perhaps  still 
greater  effect  in  the  case  of  the  unpaid  magistracy. 
Duties  of  The  duties  of  the  Magistrat  are  set  forth  partly  in 

tra\MaS18~  the  code  of  1853 1  and  partly  in  the  detailed  instructions 
which  were  issued  by  the  Prussian  government  at  an 
earlier  date ;  but  from  time  to  time  during  the  last  half- 
century  alterations  in  the  scope  of  magisterial  func- 
tions have  been  made  by  the  higher  authorities.2  At 

1  Stadteordnung,  §  56. 

2  These  may  be  found  in  Jebens's  Die  Instruktion  fur  die  Stadt-Magistrate 
vom  25.  Mai  1835  nach  neustem  Recht  (Berlin,  1901). 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  PRUSSIAN  CITIES  169 

present  the  duties  of  the  administrative  board  cover 
a  wide,  range,  and  they  do  not  fall  naturally  into  con- 
venient groups.  It  may  simplify  matters  somewhat,  how- 
ever, if  a  distinction  be  made,  first  of  all,  between  those 
powers  and  duties  that  belong  to  the  Magistrat  as  a  body, 
and  those  which  appertain  to  the  individual  members  as 
heads  of  the  various  commissions  that  control  the  civic 
departments. 

As  an  organ  of  government,  the  upper  house  of  the  mu-  AS  an  organ 
nicipal  legislature,  the  Magistrat  has  powers  which  may  ernmenf^ 
be  classified  under  nine  main  heads  :  — 

1.  It  is  intrusted  with  the  promulgation  and  enforce-  1.  An  agent 
ment  of  the  national  laws  within  the  limits  of  the  city,  tionaigov- 
a  function  in  the  exercise  of  which  it  is,  like  the  French  ernment- 
mayor,  the  agent  of  the  central  government,  and  hence 
may  act  without  concurrence  on  the  part  of  the  city 
council.1  During  recent  years  its  work  in  this  field  has 
been  greatly  increased :  one  need  only  mention  the  admin- 
istration of  the  national  laws  relating  to  the  establish- 
ment of  industrial  courts  in  the  cities,  and  of  those 
relating  to  the  various  forms  of  state  insurance,  to  make  it 
clear  that  the  Magistrat  of  every  large  city  has  to  create 
and  supervise  a  large  amount  of  new  administrative 
machinery.2  Moreover,  by  the  extensive  and  steadily 
widening  collectivist  policy  of  the  national  government 
the  routine  work  of  the  board  has  been  greatly  aug- 
mented. Finally,  besides  thus  acting  for  the  state  in  Scope  of 
matters  of  civil  policy,  the  Magistrat  is  the  recognized 
local  agent  of  the  government  in  religious  matters  as  well. 
It  has,  for  example,  immediate  supervision  of  all  church 
property  within  the  civic  limits ;  it  appoints  the  clergymen 

1  Stadteordnung,  §  56,  No.  1. 

2  The  so-termed  "  Sozialpolitischen  Versicherungsgesetze,"  which  include  the 
laws  relating  to  state  insurance  against  accident,  sickness,  and  old  age.    For  a 
list  of  these  laws,  see  Ledermann,  Die  Stadteordnung,  219-220. 


170 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


and  church  officials ;  and  it  is  responsible  for  the  general 
administration  of  the  laws  by  which  the  relations  of  the 
church  and  state  in  Prussia  are  determined.1 

German  and  In  the  exercise  of  these  functions  the  Prussian  Magistrat 
methods'of  differs  very  distinctly  from  the  upper  house  of  an  Ameri- 
administer-  can  municipal  legislature.  In  the  United  States  the 

mg  state 

functions,  laws  and  policy  of  a  state  are  carried  out,  in  the  main, 
by  authorities  appointed  directly  by  the  state  government 
and  responsible  to  it  alone ;  the  American  municipali- 
ties are  not,  as  a  rule,  intrusted  with  the  administra- 
tion of  new  functions  which  the  state  from  time  to 
time  assumes.  When  the  legislature  of  Massachusetts 
recently  made  provision  for  the  establishment  of  em- 
ployment bureaus  in  the  larger  cities  of  the  common- 
wealth, it  did  not  commit  the  execution  of  this  law 
to  the  mayors  or  to  the  aldermen  or  to  any  other 
municipal  authority ;  on  the  contrary,  it  intrusted  the 
work  to  a  state  officer.  In  Prussia  this  duty  would, 
in  all  probability,  have  been  given  to  the  administra- 
tive boards  of  the  various  cities  concerned  ;  indeed,  the 
idea  of  committing  the  administration  of  laws  to  some 
authority  not  directly  controlled  by  the  law-making 
body  runs  through  the  whole  German  governmental  system. 
In  the  United  States  federal  laws  are  executed  by 
federal  officers,  and  violations  are  penalized  by  federal 
courts ;  in  Germany  imperial  laws  are  in  the  main 
administered  by  state  officials  and  enforced  by  state 
courts.  The  imperial  government,  for  example,  frames 
the  German  tariff ;  but  the  duties  are  collected  by  an 
official  who  owes  his  appointment  to  a  state  govern- 
ment. So,  too,  the  German  imperial  parliament  makes 
provision  for  a  system  of  industrial  courts ;  but  the 

1  The  "Kirchengemeinde-  und  Synodalordnung  "  of  September  10, 1873,  espe- 
cially §§  6,  23,  34,  and  35. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  PRUSSIAN  CITIES  171 

organization  of  such  tribunals  and  the  appointment  of 
the  judges,  instead  of  being  undertaken  by  the  imperial 
authorities  themselves,  are  thrown  upon  the  states,  to  be 
by  these  in  turn  thrust  upon  the  administrative  boards 
of  the  cities  concerned.1 

Although  this  system  naturally  lessens  in  some  degree  Merits  and 
the  effectiveness  of  the  state's  control  over  the  carrying  out  t^German 
of  its  own  laws  and  policy,  it  has  at  the  same  time  some  system- 
distinct  advantages,  not  the  least  important  of  which  lies 
in  the  fact  that,  by  obviating  the  necessity  of  creating  a 
new  official  or  board  for  the  administration  of  every  new 
state  function,  it  prevents  the  multiplication  of  state  ma- 
chinery. In  Massachusetts,  where  the  opposite  policy  has 
been  pursued,  there  are  now  more  than  a  score  of  state 
commissions,  most  of  them  performing  administrative 
functions  which  would  in  Prussia  be  committed  to  the 
local  authorities.  This  delegation  of  state  functions  to  the 
German  municipal  governments  serves,  moreover,  to  en- 
hance the  dignity  and  prestige  of  the  latter.  Indeed,  not 
a  little  of  the  honor  which  attaches  to  membership  in  the 
Magistrat  comes  from  the  fact  that  this  body  is  not  merely 
a  local  organ,  but  an  important  agent  in  the  administration 
of  state  and  imperial  policy  as  well. 

2.  In  the  second  place,  the  Magistrat  prepares  the  busi-  2.  Prepares 
ness  which  is  to  come  before  the  city  council  at  its  meet-  the  council 


ings;  and,  after  this  business  has  passed  the  council,  it 
has  the  responsibility  of  carrying  the  arrangements  into  ef-  solves. 
feet.  Not  that  the  council  has  itself  no  initiative  ;  on  the 
contrary,  in  many  matters  the  two  bodies  have  equal  right 
of  originating  measures.  In  actual  practice,  however,  the 
council  rarely  does  more  than  ask  the  Magistrat  to  present 
proposals  in  certain  directions;  not  infrequently,  indeed,  it 

1  "  Gewerbe-Gerichts-Gesetz  vom  29.  Juli  1890"    (in  Reichs-Gesetz-Blatt, 
1890,  p.  141),  and  amending  laws. 


172 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


Relations 


on  matters 

of  concur- 

rent  juris- 


3.  Super- 


asks  the  administrative  board  to  lay  before  it  measures 
which  it  has  itself  fully  elaborated  in  all  their  details. 
With  all  such  requests  the  Magistrat  usually  complies. 
When  a  matter  thus  duly  submitted  has  passed  the  council, 
it  must  be  passed  again  by  the  Magistrat  before  it  becomes 
effective  ;  and  the  latter  body,  it  may  be  added,  is  entirely 
free  to  withhold  assent  if  it  deems  the  proposal  to  be  "in 
opposition  to  the  welfare  of  the  city  or  the  civic  interests."  1 
When  the  administrative  board  refuses  its  concurrence, 
council  may  bring  the  question  to  the  attention  of 
higher  authorities,  who,  if  they  deem  the  disagree- 

...  .  . 

ment  to  be  inimical  to  the  general  interests  of  the  city, 
may  give  the  matter  validity  despite  the  opposition  of 
the  Magistrat.  This,  however,  they  have  not  often  done. 
Though  disagreements  on  important  matters  have  not  been 
rare,  yet  as  a  rule  the  Magistrat  has  been  disposed  to  re- 
gard the  council  as  being  in  a  better  position  to  reflect  the 
wishes  of  the  citizens,  and  hence  has  usually  accepted  its 
decisions  whenever  the  question  has  been  one  of  general 
policy.  On  the  other  hand,  the  council,  recognizing  that 
with  matters  and  methods  of  detailed  administration  it  has 
nothing  to  do,  has  not  often  ventured  to  intrude  upon  the 
domain  of  the  Magistrat. 

3.  To  the  Magistrat,  again,  belongs  the  actual  supervision 
°f  all  municipal  undertakings  (Gemeinde-Anstalten)  and 
enterprises,  departments  of  civic  activity,  a  function  in  the  exercise  of 
which  it  is  not  required  to  consult  the  council  except  on 
points  that  involve  expenditure  of  money.2  Among  the 
various  civic  affairs  under  its  care  are  such  matters 
as  the  maintenance  and  repair  of  streets,  the  systems  of 
water  supply,  sewage  disposal,  public  lighting  and  transit, 
fire  protection,  and  markets,  the  establishment  and  regula- 
tion of  municipal  savings-banks  and  loan-offices,  the  school 

1  Stadteordnung,  §  56,  No.  2.  2  Stadteordnung,  §  56,  No.  3. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  PRUSSIAN  CITIES  173 

system  of  the  city,  and  the  whole  list  of  enterprises  com- 
monly known  as  municipal  services  or  civic  utilities.  In 
some  cases  —  as,  for  example,  in  its  supervision  of  the  edu- 
cational system  —  the  Magistrat  is  rather  closely  circum- 
scribed in  its  actions  by  the  hand  of  the  state  authorities  ; 
but  usually  it  enjoys  a  wide  range  of  freedom. 

Of  all  enterprises  that  have  been  municipalized  the  ad-  Nature  of  its 
ministrative  board  has  entire  charge.      Subject  to  the  gen-  suPervislon- 
eral  rules  relating  to  appointments,  it  names  the  permanent 
officials  in  charge,  and  is  responsible  for  the  selection  of  all 
the  subordinate  employees.     In  this  sphere  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  Magistrat  is  complete,  the  council  having  no  voice 
whatever.     The  actual  work  of   administering  the  enter- 
prises is  committed  to  the  appropriate  joint  commissions 
(Deputationen),  but  the  task  of  coordinating  the  work  of 
these  bodies  rests  upon  the  board  as  a  whole.     The  Magis- 
trat is  thus  the  focus  of  departmental  administration.     In 
the  case  of  services  provided  by  enfranchised  private  cor-  Relations 
porations,    it   is    supposed  to   see    that    the   terms  of  the  ^vi^coiv" 
franchises   are   strictly   observed.     If  a   new  franchise   is  portions, 
to   be    drawn,   it  prepares  the  proposal  and  gives  it  full 
consideration  before    sending   it  to  the  council.     All   ne- 
gotiations with  the   corporations  are  carried  on    through 
the  Magistrat ;  if,  for  instance,  any  utility  is  to  be  taken 
over  on  the  city's  behalf,  it  is  the  Magistrat  that  arranges 
all  the  plans. 

4.  The  Magistrat  has  charge  of  the  municipal  revenues,  4.  Has  the 
so   far,  at  least,  as  their  collection  and  custody  are  con-  revenues! 
cerned.1    It  does  not  determine  the  incidence  or  the  methods 
of  taxation,  for  in  these  matters   the  Prussian  tax  laws 
leave  little  or  no  discretion  to  any  local  authority ;  but 
when  the  passage  of  the  annual   budget  has  enabled  the 
rate  of  taxes  to  be  fixed  the  administrative  board  has  su- 

1  Stadteordnung,  §  56,  No.  4. 


174  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

pervision  over  the  collection  of  them.  It  also  has  immediate 
charge  of  expenditures:  no  moneys  may  be  paid  out  of  the 
municipal  treasury  except  upon  the  authority  of  the  Mag- 
istrat.  This  authority  it  may  use  directly  by  its  own  vote, 
or  may  delegate  it  to  one  or  more  of  its  members  ;  but  as 
a  body  it  retains  the  entire  responsibility.  The  Magistrat 

Audits.  is  also  answerable  for  the  proper  auditing  of  all  municipal 
accounts,  and  to  this  end  must  arrange  for  a  monthly  "  re- 
vision "  of  them,  as  well  as  for  a  special  audit  to  be  made 
at  least  once  a  year.  Of  this  yearly  examination  the  coun- 
cil must,  by  the  terms  of  the  municipal  code,  be  notified  in 
advance  in  order  that  it  may,  if  it  so  desires,  depute  one 
or  more  of  its  members  to  be  present  while  the  audit  of  the 
books  is  being  carried  on.  The  accounts  of  Prussian  cities, 
unlike  those  of  French,  are  not  regularly  audited  by  any 
higher  state  authority ;  but  certain  financial  statements 
must  be  sent  annually  to  the  district  or  the  provincial  board, 
as  the  case  may  be,  and  these  authorities  may  draw  atten- 
tion to  any  discrepancies. 

5.  Cares  for  5.  To  the  Magistral  is  further  intrusted  the  care  and 
p  maintenance  of  all  municipal  property,  including  not  only 
lands  and  other  real  estate  belonging  to  the  city,  but  all 
memorials,  monuments,  and  so  on.1  No  municipal  prop- 
erty may  be  sold  or  hypothecated  by  the  administrative 
board  except  with  the  consent  of  the  higher  authorities; 
but,  save  for  this  restriction,  it  may  be  managed  as  the  local 
officials  think  best.  For  the  acquisition  of  new  property,  or 
for  any  improvements  which  involve  expenditure,  the  concur- 
rence of  the  council  is  of  course  essential ;  but  the  actual 
administration  of  all  minor  business  affecting  civic  property 
rests  with  the  Magistrat  alone. 

Closely  related  to  the  foregoing  powers  is  that  of  grant- 
ing the  use  of  streets  and  public  places  to  public-service 

1  Stadteordnung,  §  66,  No.  5. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  PRUSSIAN  CITIES  175 

corporations.     When  any  such  permission  is  desired,  the  its  power  to 
application,   accompanied  by  the  requisite  data,  is   ordi-  ^Iseslor* 
narily  carried   directly   to   the    administrative    board,   bv  theuseof 

•*  »     streets. 

which  it  is  at  once  referred  to  the  proper  joint  commis- 
sion for  examination  and  report ;  if  favorably  received 
by  this  body,  the  request  is  then  voted  upon  by  the  Mag- 
istrat  as  a  whole.  After  the  general  plan  has  been  ap- 
proved, the  matter  is  referred  to  some  member  of  the 
board  in  order  that  the  precise  terms  of  the  franchise 
may  be  arranged  ;  and  when  these  have  been  satisfactorily 
determined,  the  application  goes  to  the  council  for  its 
approval  of  the  whole  detailed  plan.  The  latter  may 
accept,  amend,  or  reject  the  proposal ;  or  it  may  refer 
the  whole  matter  back  to  the  Magistrat  for  further  con- 
sideration. When  the  two  bodies  agree,  their  power  to 
grant  franchises  is  comprehensive :  in  no  case  is  it  neces- 
sary that  the  proposal  shall  go  before  the  voters  at  the 
polls  in  order  to  become  operative.  When,  however,  the 
two  bodies  fail  to  agree,  the  question  must  be  determined 
by  the  authorities  of  the  district  or  the  province. 

Although    the    Prussian    cities    have    been    allowed    to  Powers  of 
exercise  a  liberal  degree  of  freedom  in  the  matter  of  grant-  authorities 
ing  or  withholding  rights  in  their  own  streets,  the  experi-  in  the  matter 
ence  of  recent  years  has  served  to  show  that  the  higher  grants, 
powers  sometimes  have  to  be  reckoned  with  at  unexpected 
points.     The  imperial  and  state  governments,  for  example, 
own   and    operate   all    the    railway,   telegraph,   and    tele- 
phone lines  within  the  kingdom,  and  in  connection  with 
any  of  these  public   services  assume   the  right  to  make 
use  of  the  streets  of  any  city  without  the  permission  of 
the  local  authorities.     Moreover,  by  leaving  in  the  hands 
of  private  corporations  many  of   the  smaller  steam  rail- 
ways which  serve  only  local  traffic,  the  state  continues  to 
regulate  these  lines  by  the  law  relating  to  light  railways 


176  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

(Kleinbahngesetz).     This    class   of   railways,  however,  it 

has  commonly  been  assumed,  does  not  include  the  electric 

tramways  of  a  city.     At  any  rate,  the  cities  of  Prussia 

have  in  general  been  left  with  a  free  hand  in  the  matter 

of  enfranchising  companies  to  undertake  this  service,  the 

authorities  of  the  state  merely  ratifying  any  arrangements 

Case  of  the   which    the    municipalities    see    fit    to    make.      That  the 

Berlin  street  s^a^e    ciaims    much    more    extensive    and    direct    powers, 

railways. 

however,  was  shown  a  few  years  ago,  when  the  Prussian 
state  authorities,  acting  under  their  own  interpretation 
of  the  scope  of  the  law  relating  to  light  railways,  issued 
a  decree  prolonging  until  1949  the  franchise  of  the  Greater 
Berlin  Street  Railway  Company,  which  had  originally 
been  granted  for  twenty  years  only  by  the  Berlin  city 
government.  This  action  on  the  part  of  the  national 
ministry  was  taken  in  direct  opposition  to  the  vigorously 
expressed  desires  of  the  municipal  authorities,  and  the 
issue  of  the  decree  evoked  loud  protests  from  the  citizens 
in  general.  The  incident  serves  to  show  that  the  respec- 
tive powers  of  state  and  city  in  regard  to  enfranchising  and 
regulating  the  terms  of  franchises  are  not  easy  to  define 
with  precision.  In  this  particular  case  there  is  every 
probability  that,  when  the  original  franchise  of  the  street 
railway  company  expires  in  1919,  the  Berlin  authorities 
will  strongly  contest  the  legal  power  of  the  ministry 
to  decree  any  prolongation  of  the  term ;  meantime 
they  have  made  provisions  for  the  building  of  municipal 
lines  in  those  parts  of  the  city  which  are  not  served 
by  the  company.1  On  the  other  hand,  the  national 
government,  if  it  sees  fit  to  insist  upon  its  rights,  will 


1  For  a  statement  of  the  city's  side  of  this  controversy,  see  the  Berichte  aus 
Anlass  des  Besuches  der  englischen  Kommission  zum  Zweck  des  Studiums  stadt- 
ischer  Einrichtungen  im  Auslande  (published  in  pamphlet  form  by  the  Berlin 
authorities  in  1905),  especially  pp.  70-74. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  PRUSSIAN  CITIES  177 

undoubtedly  be  able  to  make  good  its  claim  to  final 
control.  Perhaps,  however,  it  is  hardly  fair  to  lay  too 
much  stress  upon  this  incident ;  for  at  the  time  it  occurred 
there  was  a  good  deal  of  friction  between  the  civic  and 
the  national  authorities.  On  the  whole,  the  cities  en- 
joy a  generous  degree  of  freedom  in  making  arrangements 
with  public-service  corporations  and  in  settling  for  them- 
selves all  matters  relating  to  length  of  term,  rates,  pay- 
ments, and  other  incidents  of  a  franchise. 

6.  In  the  cities  of  France  and  of  the  United  States  the  6.  Appoints 
power  to  appoint  municipal  officers  rests  in  general  with  pTdyee^!" 
the  mayor,1  and  in  the  cities  of  Great  Britain  with  the  coun- 
cil.2 In  the  Prussian  cities  it  is  vested  in  neither  of  these 
organs,  but  is  given  to  the  administrative  board,  or  Magis- 
trat.8  To  this  general  statement  there  are,  however,  some 
exceptions.  In  the  first  place,  the  appointing  power  of 
the  Magistrat  appertains  to  paid  offices  only,  the  unpaid 
officials  of  the  municipality  being  chosen  by  the  city  coun- 
cil ;  but,  although  the  latter  class  includes  such  important 
officials  as  the  citizen  deputies  (Btirgerdeputirter),  the 
district-poor  officers  (Armenpfleger),  and  many  others, 
it  may  fairly  be  said  that  nearly  all  the  more  responsible 
posts  in  the  civic  service  are  filled  by  paid  officers.  In 
the  second  place,  although  the  Magistrat  has  the  right  to 
appoint  all  paid  officials,  it  is  required  by  law,  before 
any  such  appointment  is  definitely  made,  to  submit  the 
name  of  the  proposed  appointee  to  the  council  in  order 
that  this  body  may  enter  its  protest  if  it  sees  fit  to  do  so. 
Not  that  the  council  can  actually  prevent  an  appointment  Consuita- 

.  ,  ,        tive  powers 

which    the    Magistrat    desires    to   make ;    its   part  in  the  Of  the  coun- 
matter  is  consultative  only.4     The  Magistrat  submits  the  Cll< 

1  Above,  p.  68.        2  Below,  p.  294.        8  Stadteordnung,  §  56,  No.  6. 

4  On  the  scope  and  importance  of  these  limitations,  see  Ledermann's  Die 
Stadteordnung,  263-282,  and  his  Anstellung  und  Versorgung  der  Kommunal- 
beamten  (Berlin,  1899). 


178  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

name  to  the  council ;  and  the  latter,  if  it  has  any  objec- 
tion to  the  candidate,  enters  such  objection  on  its  records 
and  transmits  it  in  due  course  to  the  administrative  board, 
which  is  supposed  to  weigh  the  soundness  of  the  criticism 
before  definitively  ratifying  the  appointment.     If  the  Magis- 
trat regards  the  objection  as  important  and  reasonable,  it 
usually  withdraws  its  proposal ;    but  it  is  not  bound  to 
do  so,  nor  does  the  council  possess  in  any  sense  a  right  to 
Certain  ap-    dictate  appointments.1     In  the  third  place,  the  appointing 
requirecon-   power  of  the  administrative  board  is  in  some  cases  sub- 
firmation.      jec£  ^Q  ^Q  SUpervision  of  the  higher  authorities,  —  that  is, 
some  of  its  appointments  do  not  become  effective  until 
they  have  received  the  approval  of  some  district  or  pro- 
vincial officer  or  board.2     This    is  true,   for  example,   of 
all    officials   of    the  police  service,   and   of   many  officers 
Minor  ap-'     connected  with  the  educational  system.     Finally,  a  large 
madefy1  S     number  of  the  minor  municipal   employees   (Unterbeam- 
jomt.com-      ten")  are,  as  a  matter  of  practice,  not  appointed  by  the 

missions.  / 

administrative  board  itself,  but  by  the  various  joint  com- 
missions (Deputationen)  which  have  charge  of  the  civic 
departments.  True,  the  Magistrat  is  responsible  for  all 
such  appointments,  and  it  may  at  any  time  and  for  any 
reason  withhold  the  power  from  the  commissions ;  but  it 
ordinarily  allows  them  entire  liberty.  Subject  to  these 
four  limitations,  the  Magistrat  ranks  as  the  appointing 
authority  in  the  Prussian  city. 

Absence  of         In  making  appointments  the  administrative  board  is  not 
service  reg-    closely  restricted  by  any  system  of  civil  service  rules,  but 
uiations.       |n  most  instances  is  left  with  a  wide  latitude  of  choice.   In 
the  case  of  a  higher  post,  the  national  laws  frequently  pro- 
vide  that  the    appointee    shall    have  certain  professional 
qualifications,  a  requirement  which  may  be  said  to  apply 

1  Jebens,  Die  Stadtverordneten,  189-191. 

2  O.  Oertel,  Die  Stadteordnung,  320  ff. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  PRUSSIAN  CITIES  179 

to  practically  all  the  officers  whose  duties  are  of  a  technical 
nature ;  but  the  cities  do  not  themselves  hold  qualifying 
examinations  for  such  positions.  It  is  merely  demanded 
that  the  appointees  shall  have  satisfied  certain  requirements 
imposed  by  the  national  government  for  appointment  to 
the  national  service,  —  demands  that  may  be  met,  in  most 
cases,  by  taking  certain  examinations  before  a  state  board 
which  the  Prussian  authorities  maintain  for  the  purpose.1 
These  examinations  are  qualifying  and  not  competitive  ;  in 
Prussian  cities  no  appointments  are  made  as  the  result  of 
competitive  tests,  as  they  sometimes  are  in  America.  The 
state  examinations  merely  determine  eligibility ;  and 
within  the  large  lists  of  eligibles  the  Magistrat  has  full 
discretion.2 

With  very  few  exceptions  all  important  appointments  in  Tenure  and 
the  regular  municipal  service  are  made  for  life.  Certain  r 
powers  of  disciplining  officials  by  suspension,  fine,  and  even 
imprisonment  are,  it  is  true,  given  to  the  Biirgermeister  ; 3 
but  only  the  Magistrat  may  remove  an  officer  from  his 
post,  and  even  in  this  power  it  is  subject  to  the  right  of 
the  removed  official  to  carry  his  case  before  the  higher  ad- 
ministrative authorities  and  to  secure  reinstatement  in 
case  good  cause  for  his  removal  be  not  shown.  In  most 
instances  the  Magistrat  determines  the  salaries  or  remu- 
nerations of  the  city  employees  ;  but  sometimes  the  mini- 
mum remuneration  is  fixed  by  national  law  or  by  decree 
of  the  higher  local  authorities.  Within  the  lines  laid  down 

1  The  best  convenient  treatise  on  the  rules  of  law  relating  to  the  municipal 
service  is  Hugo  Preuss's  Das  stadtische  Amtsrecht  in  Preussen  (Berlin,  1902). 
Other  serviceable  works  on  the  same  subject  are  F.  Kremski's  Preussische 
Kommunalbeamtengesetzgebung    (Berlin,   1901),   and    Kautz    and    Appelius's 
Preussisches  Kommunalbeamtenrecht  (Berlin,  1900). 

2  An  important  limitation  in  the  nature  of  what  we  commonly  term  "  veter- 
ans' preference"  has  been  imposed  by  the  national  laws.     The  provisions  of 
these  enactments  are  summarized  in  Ledermann's  Die  Stadteordnung,  295  ff. 

8  See  below,  p.  193. 


180 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


7.  Has  the 
custody  of 
documents. 


8.  Repre- 
sents the 
municipal- 
ity as  a  cor- 
poration. 


9.  Residual 
powers. 


by  the  national  government  the  Magistrat  also  determines 
the  rules  relating  to  retirement  and  pensions.1 

7.  To  the  Magistrat  is  committed  the  responsibility  of 
caring  properly  for  all  the  records,  deeds,  contracts,  and 
other  important  official  documents  belonging  to  the  munici- 
pality.2    This  duty  it  may  discharge  by  transferring  the 
documents  to  the   provincial  or   national   archives,  as  in 
some  cases  it  is  permitted  to  do ;  or  it  may  provide  and 
maintain  a  safe  depository  for  them  in  the  city  itself.    The 
immediate  task  of  caring  for  the  records  is  usually  com- 
mitted to  some  individual  member  of  the  administrative 
board,  who  performs  the  duties  of  municipal  archivist. 

8.  In  all  official  relations  with  the  higher  authorities, 
or  with  other  municipalities,  or  with  private  corporations 
and  individuals,  the  Magistrat  acts  as  the  representative 
of  the  city.8     Through  it,  therefore,  all  the  official  corre- 
spondence  is  carried  on.     The  Burgermeister,  it   is  true, 
usually  signs  the  papers  in  the  name  of  the  Magistrat ; 
but  the  city  is  actually  bound  only  when  the  signature  of 
some  other  member  is  also  appended  as  evidence  that  the 
board  has  assumed  responsibility.     Except  as  agent  of  the 
administrative  body,  the  Burgermeister  has   no   right   to 
represent  the  city  in  any  official  transaction ;  nor  may  the 
council  undertake  direct  relations  with  any  authority,  na- 
tional or  local,  other  than  the  Magistrat. 

9.  Finally,  the  administrative  board  is  charged  with  the 
distribution  of  work  among  civic  authorities  and  officials, 
with    the    enforcement    of   all    national   laws   within  the 
municipal  limits,  and  with  the  proper  performance  of  all 
duties,  whether  permanent  or  transitory,  which  may  be  in- 
trusted to  it  by  any  higher  authority.4     It  must  see  that 
all  the  fields  of  local  administration  are  properly  covered, 


1  See  also  below,  p.  190. 

8  Stadteordnung,  §  66,  No.  8. 


2  Stadteordnung,  §  66,  No.  7. 
*  Stadteordnung,  §  56,  No.  9. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  PRUSSIAN  CITIES  181 

that  there  is  no  overlapping  of  minor  jurisdictions,  and 
that  there  is  no  friction  between  subordinate  officials.  In 
a  word,  it  is  the  organ  which  is  expected  to  keep  all  the 
wheels  of  the  local  executive  machine  working  smoothly. 
It  is  the  apex  of  the  local  system  of  administration,  and 
the  connecting  link  between  the  municipal  and  the  national 
authorities. 

From  the  foregoing  classification  of  powers  and  functions  General  in- 
it  will  be  seen  that  the  administrative  board  is  a  very  th^Magis- 
influential  organ.  Its  jurisdiction  includes  almost  all  the  trat> 
powers  that  are  in  American  cities  intrusted  to  the  mayor, 
the  heads  of  departments,  the  various  civic  boards,  and, 
in  such  of  the  cities  as  have  the  bicameral  system,  to  the 
board  of  aldermen.  It  is  not  only  the  upper  house  of  the 
municipal  legislature,  but,  contrary  to  the  principle  of  sep- 
aration of  powers  which  has  obtained  careful  recognition 
in  the  framework  of  the  American  city,  it  is  also  the  sole 
important  executive  organ.  Being  technically  the  creature 
of  the  city  council  by  virtue  of  its  appointment  by  that 
body,  it  might  be  expected  to  permit  the  council  to  dictate 
the  course  of  executive  policy ;  but  by  reason  of  the  long 
terms  of  office  for  which  its  members  are  elected,  and 
especially  of  the  exclusive  powers  which  it  exercises,  it 
has  been  able  to  maintain  an  attitude  of  vigorous  indepen- 
dence. It  is,  in  fact,  at  once  the  most  indigenous,  the  most 
striking,  and  the  most  successful  organ  in  the  whole  range 
of  German  local  government ;  for  it  concentrates  enough 
power  to  be  effective  in  action,  and  at  the  same  time  its 
members  are  held  sufficiently  amenable  to  popular  control. 

But  while  a  large  and  important  share  in  the  actual  Powers  and 
administration  of  the  city's  affairs  is  assumed  by  the  Magistrates 
Magistrat  as  a  body,  service  at  its  meetings  does  not 
by  any  means  constitute  all  the  work  which  its  members 
are  called  upon  to  perform.  On  the  contrary,  the  duties 


182  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

which  the  individual  members  of  the  administrative  board 
undertake  as  chairmen  of  the  various  joint  commissions 
(Deputationen)  make  by  far  the  larger  demands  upon 
their  time  and  attention.1  Final  powers  in  all  the  matters 
just  enumerated  rest,  it  is  true,  with*  the  board  as  a  whole ; 
but  in  actual  practice  a  large  portion  of  them  are  virtually 
delegated  to  the  several  joint  commissions,  and  in  these 
bodies  individual  members  of  the  Magistrat  exercise  a 
large  influence.  This  influence  is  particularly  strong  on  the 
part  of  the  chairmen  of  the  commissions,  who  are  almost 
invariably  members  of  the  administrative  board. 
Procedure.  The  system  of  procedure  in  the  Magistrat  does  not  pre- 
sent any  noteworthy  features.  Its  meetings  are  held  more 
frequently  than  those  of  the  council,  and  they  are  not  open 
to  the  public.  An  attendance  of  half  the  members  is 
usually  sufficient  to  constitute  a  quorum,  but  in  the  largest 
cities  a  third  only  is  required.  Any  question  may  be  de- 
cided by  a  simple  majority  of  those  present ;  in  cases  of 
appointment  the  successful  candidate  must  secure  this 
majority,  and  not  merely  a  plurality  over  his  competitors 
for  the  post.  If  no  one  obtains  it  on  the  first  vote,  all 
the  candidates  except  the  two  who  stood  highest  drop 
out,  and  the  second  ballot  decides  between  these  two. 
Secret  ballots  are  very  rarely  used ;  on  most  matters  the 
members  of  the  Magistrat  vote  openly.  On  important 
questions  there  is,  no  doubt,  much  difference  of  opinion 
Meetings  are  among  them;  but,  since  the  meetings  are  private,  little 
the  puttie?  information  regarding  such  contentions  ever  reaches  the 
ears  of  the  councillors  or  the  general  public.  All  deci- 
sions of  the  board  come  into  public  view  as  unanimous 
resolutions,  a  fact  which  has  obviously  had  great  influence 
in  strengthening  the  popular  impression  concerning  its 
clear-cut  and  businesslike  methods.  Indeed,  in  all  prob- 

1  See  below,  pp.  199  fi. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  PRUSSIAN  CITIES  183 

ability  this  deliberation  behind  closed  doors  enables  the 
Magistrat  to  reach  its  conclusions  more  readily  than  it 
could  do  if  every  proposal  were  discussed  concurrently  in 
the  newspapers  and  on  the  street  corners.  It  is  able  to 
keep  its  plans  to  itself  until  it  has  fully  elaborated  them, 
and  then  to  bring  them  forward  in  its  own  time  and  way, 
with  all  the  weight  and  prestige  which  naturally  attach 
to  a  unanimous  report. 

The  Magistrat   conducts  its  business   somewhat  infor-  Publication 
mally ;  for  not  only  is  it  in  general  a  comparatively  small  g*on^.deci~ 
body,  but  its  business  is  almost  wholly  of  a  strictly  execu- 
tive nature,  and  at  every  meeting  there  is  a  great  deal  to 
do.     Though  it  keeps  a  record  of  each  session,  it  publishes 
nothing  but  the  final  resolutions,  which  are  printed  in  the 
official  organ  of  the  municipality.1     Such  of  them  as  may 
need  the  concurrence  of  the  council  are  also  put  on  the 
docket  of  that  body  before  its  next  meeting. 

All  meetings  of  the  Magistrat  are  presided  over  by  the  chairman- 
Biirgermeister,  who,  besides  having  the  usual  powers  of  a  Magistrat! 
chairman,  is  empowered  by  law  to  declare  out  of  order 
any  proposal  which  may  seem  to  him  "  to  be  contrary  to 
the  public  interest."2     This  comprehensive  and  important 
prerogative,  however,  which  might  easily  be  abused  were 
it  not  that  any  ruling  of  the  Bin-germeister  under  this  provi- 
sion may  be  set  aside  by  the  higher  authorities  on  the  com- 
plaint of  the  Magistrat,  the  Burgermeisters  have  used  very 
sparingly. 

The  Biirgermeister  of  a  German  city  does  not,  like  the  The  Burger- 
mayor  of  a  French  or  of  an  American  municipality,  con- 
stitute a  separate    organ    of    city  government.     Like  the 
English  mayor,  he  is   the  presiding   officer  of  that  body 

1  In   Berlin    this   publication  is  entitled    Gemeinde-Blatt  der  Haupt-  und 
Residenzstadt  Berlin,  herausgegeben  vom  Magistrat. 

2  Stadteordnung,  §  57. 


184 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


Nature  of 
his  office. 


History  of 
the  post. 


which  exercises  the  administrative  powers  of  the  city; 
in  relation  to  his  fellow-members  he  is  primus  inter  pares, 
their  colleague,  not  their  superior.  He  does,  to  be  sure, 
possess  some  important  special  prerogatives  ;  but  these  are, 
on  the  whole,  scarcely  sufficient  to  give  him  rank  as  an 
independent  official.  He  is  the  chief  magistrate  of  the 
city,  the  titular  head  of  the  municipal  government,  and 
his  office  is  the  pivotal  point  in  the  machinery  of  civic 
administration ;  but  he  is  not  the  dominating  or  control- 
ling agent  in  directing  administrative  policy.  He  may, 
indeed,  fairly  be  said  to  occupy  a  post  which,  in  point  of 
actual  influence,  is  about  midway  between  the  positions 
held  by  the  English  mayor  on  the  one  hand  and  the 
American  mayor  on  the  other.1 

The  office  of  Biirgermeister  is  a  very  old  one,  for  the 
German  free  cities  had  such  officials  as  early  as  the  thir- 
teenth century  at  least.  During  the  later  mediaeval  period 
the  Biirgermeister  exercised  a  general  oversight  in  civic 
affairs,  especially  in  those  connected  with  taxation  and 
expenditure,2  and  continued  to  do  so  down  into  the  nine- 
teenth century,  when  in  the  Stein  reorganization  of  1808 
the  office  was  put  upon  a  somewhat  different  footing. 
The  code  of  1853  denned  the  place  and  powers  of  the  Btirg- 
ermeister  in  terms  that  were  not  altogether  explicit ;  but 
during  the  last  half-century  a  large  number  of  decrees  of  the 
higher  authorities  and  decisions  of  the  administrative  courts 
have  served  to  give  the  jurisdiction  of  the  office  a  fair  degree 
of  definiteness.  During  this  period  the  powers  of  the  Biirg- 


1  Some  interesting  facts  relating  to  the  position  and  powers  of  this  official 
may  be  found  in  an  article  on  "  The  Bin-germeister,  Germany's  Chief  Municipal 
Magistrate,"  recently  published  by  one   of  my  students,    Mr.  Joseph  Torrey 
Bishop,  in  the  American  Political  Science  Review,  II.  396-410  (May,  1908). 

2  Further  details  relating  to  the  earlier  history  of  the  office  may  be  found  in 
G.  L.  von  Maurer's  Geschichte  der  Stadteverfassung  in  Deutschland  (4  vols., 
Erlangen,  1869-1871),  I.  631  ff. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  PRUSSIAN  CITIES  185 

ermeister  have  been  slightly  increased,  but  only  slightly; 
for  it  has  apparently  not  been  the  aim  of  the  higher 
authorities  to  use  this  official  rather  than  the  Magistrat 
as  the  local  agent  of  central  administration,  nor  has  it 
been  their  policy,  as  it  has  been  that  of  American  cities, 
to  seek  greater  administrative  efficiency  by  localizing 
greater  responsibility  in  a  single  hand.1 

Every  Prussian  city  has  its  Biirgermeister,  and  the  larger  Number  of 
cities  have  two.  When  there  are  two,  they  are  sometimes  tersgemei8~ 
known  as  the  first  and  second  Biirgermeister  respectively, 
but  more  often  as  the  Oberburgermeister  and  the  Biirger- 
meister,  the  former  designation  being  employed,  however, 
only  when  it  has  been  given  by  special  patent  from  the 
crown.2  The  second  Burgermeister  (when  there  are  two) 
acts  as  the  representative  of  his  senior  colleague  when- 
ever the  latter  is  absent  or  incapacitated,  or  whenever 
special  functions  pertaining  to  the  office  are  delegated  to 
him ;  otherwise  he  ranks  as  a  paid  member  of  the  admin- 
istrative board.  Like  the  other  members  of  the  Magistrat,  Burgermeis- 
the  Burgermeister  is  selected  by  the  city  council,  which, 
in  making  its  selection,  follows  the  procedure  already  de- 
tailed.3  The  range  of  choice  is  not  confined  to  residents 
of  the  municipality ;  as  a  matter  of  practice,  indeed,  the 
post  is,  in  the  larger  cities,  almost  always  filled  by  the 
election  of  some  one  who  has  already  demonstrated  his 
administrative  capabilities  as  Burgermeister  in  a  smaller 
municipality.  Sometimes  the  choice  is  made  from  among 
the  paid  members  of  the  local  Magistrat,  and  occasionally 

the  appointee  has  been  taken  from  the  state  service ;  but  Previous  ad- 
ministrative 
in  any  case  the  man  selected  for  the  post  in  any  important  experience  is 

city  is  an  expert  who  has  already  had  successful  adminis-  e 

1  On  this  point  see  Edwin  A.  Greenlaw's  essay  on  "The  Office  of  Mayor  in 
the  United  States,"  in  Municipal  Affairs,  III.  33  ff.  (March,  1899). 

2  Oertel,  Die  Stadteordnung,  140.  8  Above,  pp.  166-167. 


186 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


Contrast 
between 
German 
methods 
and  require- 
ments and 
those  of 
other  coun- 
tries. 


German 
Biirgermeis- 
ter  is  an  ex- 
pert. 


trative  experience,  and  who  owes  his  appointment  largely 
if  not  wholly  to  his  individual  abilities  and  achievements 
in  that  field.  In  this  respect  the  Prussian  Biirgermeister 
may  be  clearly  differentiated  from  the  administrative  heads 
of  French,  English,  and  American  cities.  In  all  these 
places  the  mayor  is  almost  invariably  some  private  citizen 
who  leaves  his  ordinary  vocation  for  a  year  or  a  few  years, 
and  during  this  period  devotes  a  part  or  the  whole  of  his 
time  to  the  service  of  the  municipality,  expecting  not  to 
make  a  life-work  of  local  administration,  but,  when  his 
term  is  ended,  to  return  to  private  life  and  to  his  private 
business.  He  may  or  may  not  have  had  some  experience 
in  municipal  affairs.  In  France  the  mayor,  as  has  been 
seen,  is  almost  sure  to  have  had  at  least  four  years'  expe- 
rience as  a  member  of  the  communal  council,  and  has 
usually  served  a  term  as  adjoint.1  In  the  United  States, 
however,  the  citizen  who  is  elected  to  the  office  of  mayor 
is  more  commonly  one  who  has  had  little  or  no  municipal 
experience  at  all ;  for  lengthy  service  in  the  civic  legis- 
lature is  likely  to  identify  a  man  with  various  measures 
and  movements  which,  whatever  their  nature,  are  liable 
to  make  him  as  many  enemies  as  friends  and  thus  to 
render  him  at  an  actual  disadvantage  in  a  voting  con- 
test with  a  candidate  who  has  no  local  record  at  all. 
The  aspirant  for  the  mayoralty  in  an  American  city  must 
above  all  things  be  a  good  candidate,  —  that  is  to  say,  he 
must  be  a  good  vote-getter  in  a  direct  election  under  a 
system  of  manhood  suffrage ;  his  capabilities  and  expe- 
rience as  an  administrator  are  matters  which  are,  too  fre- 
quently and  very  unfortunately,  regarded  as  of  secondary 
consequence.  The  Biirgermeister,  on  the  other  hand,  is  an 
expert,  a  professional  administrator,  who  looks  upon  his 


1  Above,  p.  63. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  PRUSSIAN  CITIES  187 

office  as  a  career,  who  seeks  the  post  on  his  public  record, 
and  who  expects  promotion  upon  this  alone. 

The  Prussian  city  council  selects  the  Burgermeister  in  Procedure  in 
very  much  the  same  way  as  a  business  corporation  selects  Bareermete- 
its  general  manager  or  other  executive  head.  It  casts  about  ter> 
among  the  smaller  corporations  engaged  in  the  same  sort 
of  business,  and  proceeds  to  rob  one  of  these  of  its  chief 
official  by  offering  him  a  post  which  is  more  attractive. 
The  smaller  cities  sometimes  advertise  for  applicants,  but 
the  larger  ones  usually  find  a  field  of  choice  all  ready 
for  them.  If  a  certain  city  like  Berlin  or  Frankfort  or 
Breslau  desires  to  fill  its  chief  magisterial  post,  it  natu- 
rally looks  to  those  men  who  have  been  commanding 
attention  by  their  success  as  Burgermeisters  or  paid 
magistrates  in  cities  of  smaller  size.  It  examines  the  rec- 
ords and  qualifications  of  such  officials,  and  soon  elimi- 
nates all  but  a  few  names,  the  choice  usually  lying 
between  no  more  than  three  or  four  candidates  by  the 
time  the  question  comes  before  the  council.  In  making 
the  selection  the  members  may  of  course  be  influenced 
to  some  slight  extent  by  partisan  prejudices  ;  but  even 
at  the  worst  this  evil  would  not  be  attended  by  seriously 
detrimental  results,  for  all  the  candidates  are  men  who 
possess  undoubted  claims  to  consideration  upon  their 
administrative  records. 

When  the  council  has  made  its  selection,  its  choice  Royal 
must  receive  the  approval  of  the  higher  powers  in  order 
to  become  valid.  In  the  smaller  cities  this  approval  is 
had  from  the  authorities  of  the  province ;  but  in  all 
cities  of  over  one  hundred  thousand  population  it  must 
be  obtained  from  the  king,1  who  usually  gives  or  withholds 
concurrence  on  the  advice  of  the  minister  of  the  interior. 
This  royal  right  to  confirm  the  council's  choice  has  not 

*  Stadteordnung,  §  33. 


188  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

in  general  been  used  in  any  unreasonable  manner  or 
made  to  serve  either  personal  or  partisan  animosities ; 
indeed,  the  royal  assent  has  commonly  been  looked  upon 
This  ap-  as  a  mere  formality.  A  few  years  ago,  however,  the 
sometimes  German  emperor,  in  his  capacity  as  king  of  Prussia, 
withheld,  showed  that  the  royal  prerogative  was  something  more 
than  a  bare  theory  by  flatly  declining  to  confirm  the  choice 
of  a  Burgermeister  selected  by  the  municipal  council  of 
Berlin.  The  council,  taken  aback  by  this  somewhat  un- 
expected move,  promptly  chose  the  same  candidate  a 
second  time  and  submitted  his  name  again  for  the 
royal  approval ;  but  the  minister  refused  to  present  the 
matter  to  his  Majesty  on  the  ground  that  the  same 
name  could  not  legally  be  returned.  After  a  long  dead- 
lock between  the  royal  and  the  municipal  authorities, 
during  which  the  office  remained  vacant,  the  council 
receded  from  its  stand  by  selecting  a  new  aspirant  whose 
appointment  was  finally,  after  a  year's  delay,  indorsed 
by  the  emperor.  Too  much  stress  ought  not,  however, 
to  be  laid  upon  this  incident  as  showing  the  strict  con- 
trol exercised  by  the  higher  authorities  of  Prussia  over 
the  administrative  affairs  of  the  cities ;  for  the  episode 
occurred  in  the  capital,  where  the  personal  interest  of 
the  monarch  in  local  administration  is  naturally  great, 
and,  furthermore,  it  happened  at  a  time  when  there  were 
several  other  matters  of  friction  between  his  Majesty 
but  is  ordi-  and  the  city  council.1  Ordinarily  it  is  rare  for  either 
freely. gm  1  ^ne  provincial  or  the  royal  authorities  to  refuse  to  sanc- 
tion any  reasonable  selections  which  the  councils  may 
make ;  but  it  may  be  that  the  councils  refrain  from  pre- 

1  Further  details  relating  to  this  episode  may  be  found  in  a  communication 
from  Professor  R.  C.  Brooks,  published  under  the  title  "Berlin  without  an 
Oberburgermeister,"  in  Annals  of  the  American  Academy  of  Political  and 
Social  Science,  XIV.  94-98  (July,  1899). 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  PRUSSIAN  CITIES  189 

sen  ting  objectionable  nominations.  There  have  been  one 
or  two  cases  in  smaller  municipalities  in  which  con- 
firmation has  been  refused  because  the  local  councils 
sought  to  appoint  to  office  men  who  were  avowed  Social 
Democrats  in  politics ;  but  such  incidents  are  of  greater 
interest  as  showing  the  national  government's  intolerance 
of  this  political  party  than  as  evidencing  its  interfer- 
ence with  the  principle  of  municipal  home  rule.  The 
higher  authorities  have  full  power  to  refuse  confirma- 
tion on  any  ground,  and  even  without  stating  their 
objections ;  but,  on  the  whole,  refusals  are  extremely 
infrequent. 

The  term  for  which  a  Burgermeister  is  selected  is  The  Burg- 
usually  twelve  years  ;  but  in  several  of  the  large  cities 
in  Leipsic,  Hanover,  and  Dresden,  for  example  —  the  office> 
appointment  is  made  for  life.  When  an  official  has 
served  his  first  term  satisfactorily,  a  second  term  of 
twelve  years  is  almost  certain  to  follow ;  and  there  are 
Burgermeisters  who  are  now  serving  their  third  terms.1 
The  tendency  of  the  whole  system  is  to  keep  the  chief 
magistrate  in  office  for  a  long  period ;  hence  vacancies 
rarely  occur  save  through  the  death  of  an  official  or  be- 
cause of  his  resignation  to  accept  some  higher  position. 
In  the  ten  largest  cities  of  Prussia  taken  together  the 
present  Burgermeisters  have  held  their  posts  for  an 
average  of  slightly  more  than  ten  years,  the  individual 
periods  ranging  from  five  to  twenty  years.  Security  and 
length  of  tenure  are,  indeed,  two  of  the  most  striking 
features  of  the  office. 

The  time  actually  spent  in  the  chief  magistracy,  how- 

1  Herr  Oberbiirgermeister  Haken  of  Stettin  has  been  in  office  since  1878,  and 
has  now  served  more  than  half  of  his  third  term.  Stande  of  Halle  has  held  his 
post  since  1882,  Becker  of  Cologne  since  1888.  Bender  of  Breslau,  Adickes  of 
Frankfort-on-the-Main,  and  Tramm  of  Hanover  have  each  been  in  office  since 
1891,  and  Beutler  of  Dresden  since  1895. 


190  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

ever,  does  not  by  any  means  usually  represent  the  whole 
of  the  official's  actual  administrative  experience ;  for 
Postfre-  election  as  Bin-germeister  is  almost  invariably  preceded 
mtedbypro-  ^7  service  in  some  subordinate  municipal  position.  The 
motion.  Oberburgermeister  has  usually  served  as  Burgermeister, 
and  the  latter,  in  turn,  as  a  paid  magistrate  or  chief  of 
administration  in  some  smaller  city.  The  present  Ober- 
burgermeister of  Berlin,  Herr  Kirschner,  served  the  cities 
of  Bromberg  and  Breslau  before  coming  to  the  capital 
as  second  Burgermeister ;  Herr  Trondlin,  who  has  been 
chief  magistrate  of  Leipsic  since  1899,  was  for  no  less 
than  twenty-three  years  previously  second  Burgermeister 
of  the  city ;  Dr.  Bender  of  Breslau  was  formerly  Burger- 
meister of  Thorn ;  and  Dr.  Adickes  of  Frankfort-on-the- 
Main  served  a  term  as  Burgermeister  of  Altona.  Indeed,  if 
one  were  to  average  the  actual  time  spent  by  the  chief 
magistrates  of  the  larger  cities  in  acquiring  administra- 
tive experience,  one  would  in  all  probability  find  that  the 
mean  term  amounted  to  a  score  of  years  or  more.1 
Salary.  As  German  salaries  go,  the  Biirgermeisters  are  well-paid 

officials,  the  stipends  ranging  from  thirty-six  thousand 
marks  per  annum  in  cities  like  Berlin  and  Frankfort  to 
three  or  four  thousand  marks  in  the  smallest  municipali- 
ties.2 Ordinarily  there  is  also  a  substantial  allowance  in 
lieu  of  an  official  residence ;  and  the  pension  provisions  are 
unusually  liberal,  an  annual  allowance  of  half  the  regular 
salary  being  given  after  twelve  years'  service,  or  an  allot- 
ment of  two-thirds  after  a  service  of  twenty-four  years.3 

1  Short  sketches  of  the  public  life  and  services  of  each  of  the  leading  German 
Biirgermeisters  may  be  found  in  Joseph  Kurschner's  Staats-,  Hof-,  und  Kommu- 
nales  Handbuch  (Berlin,  1907),  and  in  Wer  ist's  f  (Berlin,  1908). 

2  In  some  other  large  cities  the  stipends  (exclusive  of  allowances)  are  as  fol- 
lows :  Leipsic,  Magdeburg,  and  Cologne,  each  26,000  marks ;  Dresden,  20,000 
marks  ;  Hanover,  17,000  marks. 

8  The  municipal  pension  system  is  regulated  by  national  law,  and  hence  is 
uniform  in  all  the  municipalities.    See  Ledermann,  Die  Stadteordnung,  418-447. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  PRUSSIAN  CITIES  191 

The  remuneration  of  the  chief  Biirgermeister  of  Frankfort-  Remunera- 
on-the-Main  (including  allowances)  is  about  the  equiva-  pa^d^th 
lent  of  the  salary  paid  to  the  mayor  of  Boston,  a  city  of  *hato.f 
nearly  twice  the  size;  indeed,  if  one  compares  the  cities  chiefexecu- 
of  the  United  States  as  a  whole  with  those  of  the  Ger- 
man Empire,  one  finds  that  the  latter  are  the  more  liberal 
in  the  payment  of  their  chief  officials.     It  is  to  be  remem- 
bered, furthermore,  that  the  Burgermeister  has  no  political 
organization  to  support  financially,  that  he  has  no  expen- 
sive election   campaigns  to  conduct,  and  that  he   is   not 
expected  to  make  heavy  outlays  for  charitable  and  other 
purposes  during  his  term  of  office.     It  is  not  considerations 
of  salary  alone,  however,  which  attract  men  of  ability  to 
the   municipal   service  and   prevail  upon    them   to   select 
local  administration  as  a  career.     It  is  rather  the  security 
of  tenure,  the  liberal  pension,  the  important  public  services 
which   an    incumbent    may  render,   and    the    high    social 
prestige   attaching   to   the   office,  that   cause  the  post  of 
Burgermeister  to  be  ranked  as  a  prize  even  by  the  ablest. 

According  to  the  letter  of  the  law  the  powers  of  Powers  of 
the  Burgermeister  are  not  extensive.  In  the  act  of  1853 
they  are  enunciated  very  briefly,  little  jurisdiction  being 
specified  other  than  that  of  presiding  at  meetings  of  the 
administrative  board  and  directing  the  general  course  of 
municipal  administration ;  but  in  the  letter  of  instructions 
which  the  national  authorities  issued  some  years  previ- 
ously and  which  is  still  in  force,  they  are  defined  somewhat 
more  explicitly.1  From  a  study  of  the  law  alone,  how- 
ever, one  cannot  obtain  an  accurate  idea  of  the  official's 
duties,  for  much  depends  upon  the  character  of  the  in- 
dividual who  may  occupy  the  post.  A  Burgermeister 
who  so  desires  may  leave  almost  every  important  matter 
to  the  administrative  board,  and  may  content  himself 

1  Jebens,  Die  Instruktion  fur  die  Static-Magistrate  vom  25.  Mai  18S5,  §  20. 


192 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


Flexible  na- 
ture of  these 
powers. 


Presides 
over  Magis- 
trat. 


Powers  as 
a  presiding 
officer. 


with  following  rather  than  leading  its  counsels.  On 
the  other  hand,  an  official  of  pronounced  individuality 
and  vigor  may  even  dominate  the  board,  and  thus  make  him- 
self an  influential  iactor  in  the  direction  of  municipal 
policy.  Such  a  one  is  Dr.  Adickes  of  Frankfort,  who 
for  more  than  a  decade  has  been  a  towering  influence  in 
the  administration  of  that  city,  and  who  by  his  marked 
success  in  the  field  of  local  administration  has  acquired 
a  reputation  which  extends  far  beyond  the  bounds  of  his 
own  land.  The  office,  in  short,  is  one  that  possesses  suffi- 
cient flexibility  to  make  it  capable  of  adaptation  to  the 
powers  and  tastes  of  different  men. 

First  among  the  Burgermeister's  ordinary  functions  is 
that  of  presiding  at  all  meetings  of  the  Magistrat.  He 
prepares  the  business  which  is  to  be  considered,  and  sees 
to  it  that  all  matters  come  before  the  board  in  proper 
form.  By  the  terms  of  the  municipal  code  he  is  author- 
ized to  prevent  the  introduction  of  any  proposal  which 
is  opposed  to  the  general  interest  of  the  city  or  which 
contravenes  the  laws  of  the  land ;  but  this  power,  as  has 
been  seen,  he  uses  very  sparingly.1  As  presiding  officer 
he  determines  all  questions  relating  to  "  order,  rank,  and 
dignity  "  in  the  Magistrat,  and  interprets  the  board's  own 
rules  relating  to  procedure.2  When  the  Magistrat  reaches 
a  decision  upon  any  point,  he  must  see  that  this  decision 
is  duly  communicated,  if  communication  be  necessary,  to 
the  city  council.  When,  on  the  other  hand,  the  adminis- 
trative body  has  exclusive  jurisdiction  in  the  matter,  it 
is  the  task  of  the  Biirgermeister  to  see  that  its  resolutions 
are  at  once  carried  into  effect.  To  this  end  he  may  issue 
ordinances,  or  "  instructions,"  which  fill  in  the  necessary 

1  Above,  p.  183. 

8  Die  Instruktion  fur  die  Stadt-Magistratevom  25.  Mai  1835,  especially  §  20, 
No.  3. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  PRUSSIAN  CITIES  193 

details,  and  may  allot  the  work  of  executing  the  Magis- 
trat's  resolutions  to  the  appropriate  authorities.1  In  a 
word,  he  is  the  executive  agent  of  the  administrative 
board,  preparing  business  for  its  consideration  and  super- 
vising the  execution  of  its  orders.  In  the  latter  capacity 
he  may  have  much  or  little  discretion  ;  the  actual  amount 
will  depend  somewhat  upon  the  degree  of  confidence 
which  the  members  of  the  board  put  in  the  judgment 
and  ability  of  their  chief. 

Besides   guiding  the  deliberations  and  business   of  the  Supervisory 
Magistrat  as  a  body,  the  Burgermeister  exercises   super-  pov 
visory  jurisdiction  over  the  work  of  its  individual  mem- 
bers,   and    indeed    over   that    of    all    municipal    officers. 
Unlike  the  chief  executives  in  the  cities  of  France  and  the 
United  States,  he  makes  no  important  appointments,  for 
this  function  belongs  either  to  the  administrative  board  or 
to  the  council ;  but  he  apportions  the  various  departments  Appoints 

<•••        j      •    •  A      A  •  j.  i_  •    i.     •    •    j  •     «  members  of 

of  civic  administration  to  the  appropriate  joint  commissions,  various 
and  he  determines  who  shall  be  members  of  these  commis-  J°jnt.com- 

missions. 

sions,2  selecting  some  from  the  Magistrat,  some  from  the 
council,  and  some  from   the   citizen   deputies.     He  may, 
furthermore,  rearrange  and   reconstitute  the  commissions 
as  he  sees  fit,  a  jurisdiction  which  gives  him  great  influence 
in  directing  the  civic  departments  if  he  chooses  to  make  his 
own  policy  effective  through  these  channels.     Having  or- 
ganized the  commissions  and  allotted  their  tasks,  he  is  re- 
sponsible for  seeing  that  the  various  kinds  of  work  are 
properly  coordinated  and  that  those  in  the  pay  of  the  city 
perform  their  duties  properly.     Complaints  concerning  all  Has  discipii- 
civic  officials  and  employees  are  made  to  him  directly,  and  over  dvic" 
he  is  vested  with  disciplinary  power  over  the  whole  mu-  officials- 
nicipal  service.8     He  may  suspend,  fine,  or  even  imprison 

1  Die  Instruction  fur  die  Stadt-Magistrate  vom  25.  Mai  1SS5,  especially  §  20, 
No.  4  2  Ibid.  No.  2.  8  Stadteordnung,  §  68. 


194  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

any  official  who  has  appeared  remiss  in  his  duties  ;  but  his 
power  to  remove  is  closely  circumscribed  by  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  administrative  courts,  and  from  his  local  dis- 
ciplinary measures  appeal  may  be  made  to  the  higher 
administrative  authorities.  When  the  removal  of  any  offi- 
cial seems  to  be  urgently  demanded  by  the  best  interests 
of  the  municipality,  the  Biirgermeister  may  displace  him 
provided  he  forthwith  notify  the  Magistrat.  Indeed,  with 
the  assent  of  the  district  authorities  he  may  even  remove 
a  member  of  the  administrative  board  itself.1 

Authorityto  Another  duty  allotted  to  the  Biirgermeister  is  that  of 
nicipai  de^~  inspecting  from  time  to  time  the  various  municipal  depart- 
partments.  ments,  in  order  to  see,  as  the  instructions  express  it,  "  that 
an  active  spirit  prevails  throughout  the  service."  He  re- 
ceives the  departmental  reports,  which  in  due  course  he 
lays  before  the  administrative  board ;  and  he  is  at  liberty 
to  call  for  further  information  from  any  civic  department. 
One  of  his  special  duties  is  to  supervise  the  affairs  of  the 
city  treasury,  and  in  particular  to  see  that  the  Magistrat 
makes  provision  for  the  proper  and  regular  auditing  of 
accounts.  If  he  thinks  it  desirable,  he  may  cause  a  special 
audit  or  investigation  to  be  undertaken  in  any  department 
at  any  time.  When  difficulties  or  friction  arise  between 
departments,  it  is  usually  the  function  of  the  Biirger- 
meister to  settle  such  misunderstandings.  Under  all 
circumstances,  in  short,  he  is  expected  to  keep  the  ma- 
chinery of  civic  administration  in  smooth  working  order 
at  every  point. 

Police  func-  Besides  attending  to  all  these  duties,  the  Biirgermeister 
has  a  hand  in  the  police  administration  of  the  city.  In 
Prussian  municipalities  of  over  100,000  population  the 
police  may  be  in  charge  of  a  national  commissioner  ap- 

1  For  exact  references  to  the  various  laws  and  decisions  relating  to  the  Btirg- 
ermeister's  disciplinary  powers,  see  Oertel's  Die  Stadteordnung,  378. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  PRUSSIAN  CITIES  195 

pointed  by  and  responsible  to  the  Prussian  government; 
but  in  all  except  the  largest  cities  the  control  of  the  civic 
police  service  is  given  to  the  Biirgermeister,  who  in  this 
sphere  acts  as  the  agent  of  the  state  authorities,  with  powers 
corresponding  somewhat  closely  to  those  of  the  French 
maire.1  He  has  general  charge  of  all  matters  relating  to 
police  organization,  discipline,  and  duties;  but  his  dis- 
cretionary power  is  somewhat  closely  circumscribed  by 
the  state  regulations  in  regard  to  police  administration 
and  functions.2  He  issues  the  usual  police  ordinances;  Scope  of  the 
but  before  promulgating  them  he  must  usually  consult 
with  the  Magistrat,  whose  assent  is  always  required  when 
the  ordinance  deals  with  matters  pertaining  to  the  public  police, 
safety.  The  actual  work  of  police  administration  is,  of 
course,  performed  by  the  chief  police  commissioner,  who 
in  all  cities  which  do  not  have  state  police  control  is  ap- 
pointed by  the  Biirgermeister,  though  from  a  range  of 
choice  that  is  rendered  somewhat  narrow  by  the  strictness 
of  the  national  laws  relating  to  promotions  in  the  police 
service.  The  power  to  remove  this  commissioner  may 
be  exercised  only  by  the  higher  authorities,  who  also 
have  the  sole  right  to  displace  even  the  subordinate 
officers  in  the  municipal  police  department.  In  the  whole 
matter  of  police  administration  the  Prussian  national 
government  has  maintained  an  unyielding  grip. 

The  various  functions  included  within  the  scope  of  the 

term  "police  administration"  are   much  more  numerous  police  func- 
tions in  Qer- 

and  more  comprehensive  in  Prussia  than  in  England  or  in  many. 

1  Stadteordnung,  §  62. 

2  The  whole  matter  of  local  police  administration  and  control  (Srtliche  Poli- 
zei-Verwaltung)  was  dealt  with  by  a  comprehensive  statute  in  1850  ("Gesetz 
fiber  die  Polizei-Verwaltung  vom  11.  Marz  1850,"  in  Gesetz- Sammlung  fur  1850, 
pp.  265  ff.)  ;  but  this  code  has  been  considerably  altered  by  subsequent  legisla- 
tion.    The  present  state  of  the  laws  relating  to  local  police  control  may  be 
studied  in  Arnstedt's  Das  Preussische  Polizeirecht  (Berlin,  1905). 


200  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

departments  interested.  They  are  utilized  as  members 
in  order  that  the  deputation  may  at  all  times  have  the 
benefit  of  their  expert  advice  in  matters  that  may  come 
before  it,  —  advice  which  from  the  nature  of  things  usually 
carries  important  weight  in  enabling  the  deputation  to 
reach  its  conclusions.  They  are  entitled  to  be  present  at 
all  meetings  and  may  speak  on  any  question,  but  they  do 
Citizen  not  vote.  The  citizen  deputies,  on  the  other  hand,  are 
laymen,  who  otherwise  have  no  official  connection  with 
the  city  government.  They  are  not  employed  by  all  the 
Prussian  cities,  and  the  number  of  them  thus  brought  into 
direct  relation  with  municipal  administration  varies  greatly 
in  the  different  municipalities.  Berlin  has  ninety-three  in 
all.1  The  citizen  deputies  are  men  of  professional,  business, 
or  other  influence,  drawn  from  all  parts  of  the  municipality 
and  from  all  ranks  of  its  population.  They  are  selected 
by  the  council  for  a  six-year  term,  draw  no  remuneration, 
and  do  not  constitute  an  organ  of  municipal  administra- 
tion. They  do  not  meet  as  a  body,  and  their  membership 
is  constantly  shifting.  They  are  simply  posted  to  the 
different  deputations,  a  few  to  each  one ;  but  as  members 
of  these  bodies  they  have  full  voting  rights  on  all  ques- 
Vaiueofthe  tions.  By  thus  enlisting  private  citizens  in  the  direct 
ci^admin^  work  of  civic  government,  and  combining  with  the  skill 
istration.  of  £ne  professional  the  enthusiasm  of  the  amateur,  the 
Prussian  system  has  served  to  give  to  the  departmental 
administrations  an  elasticity  and  responsiveness  to  popular 
opinion  which  they  might  not  otherwise  have  had ;  and  it 
has  drawn  to  the  service  of  the  municipality  the  coopera- 
tion and  sympathy  of  a  considerable  body  of  laymen 
representing  important  and  influential  interests. 

The  selection  of  the  members  of  deputations  rests  with 
the  Burgermeister,  who  makes  rearrangements  from  time 
1  Bericht  uber  die  Gemeinde-Verwaltung  der  Stadt  Berlin,  1901-1905, 1.  7. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  PRUSSIAN  CITIES  201 

to  time,  and  always  after  a  new  council  has  been  elected.1  Commis- 
Ordinarily  his   choice    does   not   require   confirmation  by 
any  higher  authority;  but  to  this  rule  there  are  a  few 


commis- 
sions. 


TT.  .  ermeister. 

exceptions.  His  appointments  to  membership  in  the  school 
deputation,  for  instance,  must  have  higher  approval  ;  for 
the  schools  of  Prussia  are  not  regarded  simply  as  local 
institutions,  but  are  placed  under  strict  supervision  by  the 
national  Ministry  of  Public  Instruction.2 

The  various  deputations  meet  frequently,  often  once  a  Work  of  the 
week,  and  handle  a  formidable  amount  of  routine  business, 
which  is  usually  prepared  in  advance  by  the  chairman. 
The  work  of  the  members  consists  in  discussing,  revising, 
and  voting  upon  proposals  thus  laid  before  them.  After 
finally  passing  upon  a  matter,  the  deputation  transmits  its 
decision  in  the  form  of  a  report  to  the  Magistrat  ;  for  its 
powers  are  in  no  case  final.  It  may  simply  recommend 
action,  and  its  recommendations  may  be  adopted  or  re- 
jected by  the  Magistrat  as  that  body  thinks  fit.  As  a 
matter  of  practice,  however,  the  suggestions  of  the  depu- 
tation so  far  as  they  concern  matters  of  routine  are  inva- 
riably approved,  and  even  in  important  affairs  they  carry 
almost  decisive  weight  ;  they  are  rarely  rejected  except 
for  very  good  reasons.  Some  deputations  have  more  inde- 
pendence than  others,  —  the  school  commission,  for  instance, 
has  an  almost  entirely  free  hand  in  matters  relating  to  the 
supervision  of  school  buildings,  the  appointment  and  transfer 
of  teachers,  the  hearing  of  complaints,  and  so  on  ;  but  in 
general  the  deputations  are"  strictly  subordinate  to  the 
administrative  board,  with  no  powers  except  such  as  may 
be  delegated  to  them  by  that  body.  In  this  respect  they 
find  almost  exact  counterparts  in  the  English  council  com- 
mittees. 

1  Die  Instruktion  fur  die  Stadt-Magistrate  vom  25.  Mai  835,  §  20,  No.  2. 

2  Stadteordnung,  §  59. 


198 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


Has  charge 

of  adminis- 
trative de- 
partments. 


Has  no  exact 
prototype  in 
municipal 
systems  of 
other  coun- 
tries. 


supervise  the  various  civic  departments  and  seek  to  carry 
out,  in  spirit  as  well  as  in  letter,  the  instructions  that 
come  to  them  from  above.  These  efficient  bodies  are  the 
joint  commissions,  or  deputations. 

For  purposes  of  actual  administration  the  functions  of 
the  Prussian  city  are  divided  into  departments,  the  division 
being  arranged  along  much  the  same  lines  as  in  American 
cities.  The  number  of  such  departments  depends,  of 
course,  upon  the  size  of  the  city  and  the  complexity  of 
its  administrative  problems,  and  accordingly  varies  from 
four  or  five  departments  in  the  smaller  municipalities  to  a 
score  or  more  in  cities  like  Berlin  and  Frankfort.  New 
departments  are  created  as  necessity  arises,  or  two  depart- 
ments may  be  merged  into  one,  the  decision  in  each  case 
resting  with  the  Magistrat  unless  additional  expenditures 
are  involved,  when  the  concurrence  of  the  council  must 
also  be  obtained.  Each  department  is  committed  to  the 
charge  of  a  separate  deputation,  or  joint  commission,  which, 
subject  to  the  supervision  and  control  of  the  Magistrat, 
performs  the  routine  work  of  departmental  administration. 

The  Prussian  municipal  deputation  does  not  correspond 
either  in  organization  or  in  functions  to  the  appointive 
civic  board  or  commission  which  is  a  familiar  factor  in 
the  American  municipal  system  ;  nor  is  it  in  all  respects 
the  prototype  of  the  council  committee  which,  in  the  Eng- 
lish borough,  assumes  immediate  charge  of  some  partic- 
ular field  of  municipal  activity.  It  rather  embodies  the 
principles  at  the  basis  of  each  of  these  types,  and  yet  differs 
from  each  in  some  important  features.  Like  the  American 
civic  board  or  commission,  it  contains  in  its  membership 
men  who  do  not  belong  to  the  municipal  council  and  who 
have  not  gone  before  the  people  at  the  polls ;  but,  unlike 
the  American  commission,  it  is  directly  responsible  to  a 
branch  of  the  civic  legislature,  without  the  approval  of 


THE   GOVERNMENT  OF  PRUSSIAN  CITIES  199 

which  it  can  take  no  final  action  of  importance.  In  this 
limitation  it  corresponds  rather  closely  to  the  English  bor- 
ough committee,  though  in  its  organization  it  differs  fun- 
damentally from  that  body.  The  deputation  is,  indeed,  a 
unique  institution  in  the  science  of  city  government;  it  is 
German  in  origin  and  exclusively  German  in  use. 

In  size  the  deputations  vary  considerably,  the  member-  Composition 
ship  ranging  from  three  or  five  to  perhaps  thirty  or  more,  commit" 
according  to  the  importance  and  extent  of  the  work  to  be  8ions- 
performed.     At  the  head  of  each  deputation  is  a  chairman 
(Vorsitzender),  who  is  invariably  a  member  of  the  Magis- 
trat.     The  post  is  ordinarily  held  by  one  of  the  paid  mem-  Members  of 
bers  of  the  board,  especially  when  the  department  concerned  trat.  aglS~ 
is  a  legal,  financial,  or  some  technical  branch  of  the  city's 
service ;    but  unpaid   members  are  frequently  utilized  as 
chairmen  of  the  less  important  deputations,  and  sometimes 
even  of  the  more  important  ones.     The  chairman  is  des- 
ignated by  the  Biirgermeister  from  among  the  members  of 
the  administrative  board,  and  holds  his  post  until  the  chief 
magistrate  sees  fit  to  make  a  change.     In  the  most  im- 
portant deputations,  however,  changes  in  the  chairmanships 
are  very  infrequent.     The  members  of  the  deputation  are  Councillors, 
also   named  by   the  Biirgermeister,  who   may  draw  them 
wholly  from  the  Magistrat,  or  partly  from  the  Magistrat 
and  partly  from  the  council,  or  may  make  up  a  commission 
of  magistrates,  councillors,  officials,  and  citizen  deputies. 
The  last-named  procedure  is  the  one  most  commonly  fol- 
lowed, the  quota  of  each  class  being  determined  by  agree- 
ment between  the  Magistrat  and  the  council.     The  typical 
deputation  contains  members  drawn  from  all  four  sources. 

The  presence  of  officials  and  of  citizen  deputies  on  the  officials, 
various  deputations  calls  for  some  explanation.     The  offi- 
cials, of  whom  each  deputation  contains  one  or  two,  are 
drawn  from  among  the  higher  professional  officers  in  the 


200  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

departments  interested.  They  are  utilized  as  members 
in  order  that  the  deputation  may  at  all  times  have  the 
benefit  of  their  expert  advice  in  matters  that  may  come 
before  it,  —  advice  which  from  the  nature  of  things  usually 
carries  important  weight  in  enabling  the  deputation  to 
reach  its  conclusions.  They  are  entitled  to  be  present  at 
all  meetings  and  may  speak  on  any  question,  but  they  do 
Citizen  not  vote.  The  citizen  deputies,  on  the  other  hand,  are 
laymen,  who  otherwise  have  no  official  connection  with 
the  city  government.  They  are  not  employed  by  all  the 
Prussian  cities,  and  the  number  of  them  thus  brought  into 
direct  relation  with  municipal  administration  varies  greatly 
in  the  different  municipalities.  Berlin  has  ninety-three  in 
all.1  The  citizen  deputies  are  men  of  professional,  business, 
or  other  influence,  drawn  from  all  parts  of  the  municipality 
and  from  all  ranks  of  its  population.  They  are  selected 
by  the  council  for  a  six-year  term,  draw  no  remuneration, 
and  do  not  constitute  an  organ  of  municipal  administra- 
tion. They  do  not  meet  as  a  body,  and  their  membership 
is  constantly  shifting.  They  are  simply  posted  to  the 
different  deputations,  a  few  to  each  one ;  but  as  members 
of  these  bodies  they  have  full  voting  rights  on  all  ques- 
Vaiueofthe  tions.  By  thus  enlisting  private  citizens  in  the  direct 
cilyadmin^  work  of  civic  government,  and  combining  with  the  skill 
istration.  of  fae  professional  the  enthusiasm  of  the  amateur,  the 
Prussian  system  has  served  to  give  to  the  departmental 
administrations  an  elasticity  and  responsiveness  to  popular 
opinion  which  they  might  not  otherwise  have  had ;  and  it 
has  drawn  to  the  service  of  the  municipality  the  coopera- 
tion and  sympathy  of  a  considerable  body  of  laymen 
representing  important  and  influential  interests. 

The  selection  of  the  members  of  deputations  rests  with 
the  Burgermeister,  who  makes  rearrangements  from  time 
1  Eericht  iiber  die  Gemeinde-  Verwaltung  der  Stadt  Berlin,  1901-1905, 1.  7. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  PRUSSIAN  CITIES  201 

to  time,  and  always  after  a  new  council  has  been  elected.1  Commis- 
Ordinarily  his   choice    does   not   require   confirmation  by 


any  higher  authority  ;  but  to  this  rule  there  are  a  few  by  th? 
exceptions.  His  appointments  to  membership  in  the  school 
deputation,  for  instance,  must  have  higher  approval  ;  for 
the  schools  of  Prussia  are  not  regarded  simply  as  local 
institutions,  but  are  placed  under  strict  supervision  by  the 
national  Ministry  of  Public  Instruction.2 

The  various  deputations  meet  frequently,  often  once  a  Work  of  the 
week,  and  handle  a  formidable  amount  of  routine  business, 
which  is  usually  prepared  in  advance  by  the  chairman. 
The  work  of  the  members  consists  in  discussing,  revising, 
and  voting  upon  proposals  thus  laid  before  them.  After 
finally  passing  upon  a  matter,  the  deputation  transmits  its 
decision  in  the  form  of  a  report  to  the  Magistrat  ;  for  its 
powers  are  in  no  case  final.  It  may  simply  recommend 
action,  and  its  recommendations  may  be  adopted  or  re- 
jected by  the  Magistrat  as  that  body  thinks  fit.  As  a 
matter  of  practice,  however,  the  suggestions  of  the  depu- 
tation so  far  as  they  concern  matters  of  routine  are  inva- 
riably approved,  and  even  in  important  affairs  they  carry 
almost  decisive  weight  ;  they  are  rarely  rejected  except 
for  very  good  reasons.  Some  deputations  have  more  inde- 
pendence than  others,  —  the  school  commission,  for  instance, 
has  an  almost  entirely  free  hand  in  matters  relating  to  the 
supervision  of  school  buildings,  the  appointment  and  transfer 
of  teachers,  the  hearing  of  complaints,  and  so  on  ;  but  in 
general  the  deputations  are'  strictly  subordinate  to  the 
administrative  board,  with  no  powers  except  such  as  may 
be  delegated  to  them  by  that  body.  In  this  respect  they 
find  almost  exact  counterparts  in  the  English  council  com- 
mittees. 

1  Die  Instruktion  fur  die  Stadt-Magistrate  vom  25.  Mai  835,  §  20,  No.  2. 
8  Stadteordnung,  §  59. 


202  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

influence  of        From  every  point  of  view  the  most  important  member 
menCoflr"      °f  the  deputation  is  its  chairman,  who,  as  has  been  said, 
deputations.  js  usually  a  paid  member  of  the  Magistrat.     On  behalf  of 
the  commission  he  supervises    directly  the    work    of    the 
departmental  staff,  from  the  higher  officials  downward ; 
he  is  intrusted  with  the  task  of  enforcing  the  instructions 
of  the  deputation  after   they  have   been  approved ;    and 
he  attends  to  all  such  details  as  may  not  have  been  con- 
sidered in  the  framing  of  the  general  proposals.     When 
emergencies  arise  in  his  department,  the  chairman  takes 
action  upon  his  own  responsibility,  reporting  to  the  depu- 
tation at  its  next  meeting.     He  is  the   connecting  link 
between  the  Magistrat  and  the   departmental   staff,  and 
for  the  smooth  working  of  his  department  is  held  strictly 
accountable   by  the  Magistrat.     At  the    council-meetings 
he  may  at  any  time  be  called  upon  for  information  relat- 
ing to  his  department,  and  may  be  asked  to  explain  or 
justify  any  action  recommended  by  his  deputation.     In- 
Compared      deed,    in    the    general    framework    of   administration   the 
men  of*"      chairman   of   the   Prussian    deputation    occupies   a   place 
council  com-  whicn  corresponds  very  closely  to  that  held  by  the  chair- 

mittees  in 

England.  man  of  an  English  council  committee,  the  chief  difference 
being  that  the  former  is  usually  a  paid  expert  and  the 
latter  an  unpaid  layman.  In  either  case  the  efficiency  of 
civic  administration  depends  to  a  considerable  degree  upon 
the  character  and  capabilities  of  the  individual  who  hap- 
pens to  hold  the  office ;  for  in  all  matters  concerning  his 
department  each  chairman  exerts  much  influence  over  his 
colleagues. 

Nature  of  It  is  a  rule  in  Prussian  municipal  administration  that 

formecTby     a^  important  proposals  must  be  considered  by  the  appro- 
deputations,  priate  deputation  before  they  come  up  for  consideration 
in   the  administrative  board.     If   a    matter    is  of    conse- 
quence to    more    than   a    single   department  it   must   be 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  PRUSSIAN  CITIES  203 

submitted  to  all  the  deputations  concerned,  and  if  any  addi- 
tional expenditures  are  involved  it  must  also  go  before  the 
finance  deputation.  Though  often  productive  of  delay, 
this  policy  serves  to  secure  careful  consideration  of  almost 
every  important  matter  from  various  points  of  view ;  for 
in  every  large  city  the  administration  is  apportioned  into 
so  many  departments  that  every  question  of  any  signifi- 
cance is  very  likely  to  be  of  concern  to  more  than  one 
division.  Berlin,  for  example,  has  deputations  in  charge 
of  poor  relief,  city  buildings,  fire  protection,  hospitals, 
industrial  and  workingmen's  insurance,  industrial  and 
mercantile  courts,  finance,  libraries  and  reading-rooms, 
civic  art,  markets,  parks  and  gardens,  municipal  savings- 
banks,  taxes,  statistics,  street  cleaning  and  watering,  traffic, 
gas,  sewers,  municipal  stables,  municipal  slaughter-houses, 
and  water,  besides  the  commissions  in  control  of  the  various 
grades  of  schools,  and  many  others  of  minor  importance. 
It  is  not  often,  therefore,  that  an  important  matter  con- 
cerns a  single  department. 

In  order  to  get  a  clearer  idea  of  the  structure  and  func-  Atypical 
tions  of  the  deputation  in  general,  it  may  be  well  to  described, 
examine  a  typical  commission,  —  that  in  charge  of  the 
sewers  and  sewer-farms  of  Berlin,  for  example.  This 
body  is  at  present  made  up  of  seventeen  persons  in  all,  — 
a  paid  member  of  the  Magistrat  as  chairman,  four  other 
members  of  the  same  board  (two  paid  and  two  unpaid), 
ten  members  of  the  city  council,  one  city  official,  and  one 
citizen  deputy.  It  has  charge  of  the  construction  and 
maintenance  of  the  sewage  tunnels,  collectors,  and  pump- 
ing-stations,  and  of  the  city  farms  upon  which  the  sewage 
is  profitably  utilized.  It  prepares  the  estimate  of  yearly 
expenditures  in  this  department ;  and,  besides  providing 
for  current  expenses,  it  must  plan  for  additions  to  a  sinking 
fund  for  the  ultimate  repayment  of  the  cost  of  the  sewer- 


204 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


Internal 
organiza- 
tion of  a 
typical 
commission. 


age  plant.  After  the  budget  has  been  passed,  the  deputa- 
tion superintends  the  expenditure  of  the  amounts  allotted 
to  its  use  in  the  regular  list  and  of  any  additional  appro- 
priations made  to  it  during  the  year.  It  determines, 
subject  to  the  Magistrat's  approval,  the  amount  of  sewer 
taxes  to  be  paid  by  householders.  It  recommends  all 
appointments  within  the  department,  makes  contracts  for 
materials,  arranges  for  the  leasing  of  the  sewage-farms 
or  for  their  direct  management  by  its  own  officials,  and 
in  general  attends  to  every  important  incident  of  depart- 
mental administration.  Once  a  year  it  presents  to  the 
Magistrat  an  elaborate  report  on  the  conduct  of  its  ser- 
vice ;  and  this  record,  after  consideration  by  the  board,  is 
incorporated  in  the  general  report  made  yearly  by  the 
latter  body. 

For  the  more  efficient  administration  of  its  affairs  the 
department  is  divided  into  three  bureaus,  all  of  which  are 
immediately  under  the  deputation's  control  and  super- 
vision. One  of  these  bureaus  deals  with  general  questions 
of  administration,  another  with  all  matters  connected  with 
the  collection  of  the  sewage  and  its  transmission  to  the 
farms,  the  third  with  the  management  of  the  farms  and 
the  disposal  of  the  farm  products.  Each  bureau  has  its 
chairman,  and  under  his  control  is  ranged  the  staff  of  per- 
manent officials,  who,  like  the  chairmen,  hold  their  appoint- 
ments from  the  Magistrat.  As  a  matter  of  practice,  when 
a  vacancy  occurs  in  any  branch  of  the  administrative  ser- 
vice of  the  department,  recommendations  in  regard  to  the 
filling  of  the  post  are  sent  to  the  Magistrat  by  the  appro- 
priate deputation,  but  usually  not  until  it  has  consulted 
the  chief  of  the  subordinate  bureau  concerned.  Except 
for  technical  positions  no  special  requirements  are  exacted. 
Those  whose  duties  are  of  a  clerical  nature  must,  of  course, 
give  proof  of  a  general  education ;  but  from  ordinary 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  PRUSSIAN  CITIES  205 

workmen  no  particular  qualifications  are  demanded.  In  its  control 
all  save  the  lowest  offices  appointments  are,  as  a  rule,  ments°mt" 
made  only  for  probationary  periods  varying  from  six 
months  to  a  year  in  length,  at  the  end  of  which  the  nomi- 
nations are  declared  permanent  if  the  appointees  have 
shown  satisfactory  efficiency.  Promotions  are  likewise 
made  on  recommendation  of  the  officials  at  the  head  of  the 
bureaus  or  the  department ;  and  increases  of  remuneration 
come,  in  most  cases,  at  specified  intervals.  In  all  the 
higher  branches  of  the  service  municipal  employees  are 
entitled  to  liberal  pensions  on  retirement  after  long  terms. 
Except  that  those  who  openly  profess  allegiance  to  the 
doctrines  of  the  Social  Democracy  are  rather  generally 
excluded  from  any  place  on  the  civic  pay-roll,  partisan 
predilections  have  little  or  no  part  in  influencing  appoint- 
ments, promotions,  or  removals. 

The  German  municipal  bureaucracy  secures,  indeed,  most  The  munici- 
of  the  advantages  which  some  American  cities  have  sought  cracy"* 
to  gain  for  their  municipal  staffs  through  civil  service  re- 
form  regulations.     Non-partisan  appointments,  probation- 
ary periods  of  service,  promotion  on  the  recommendation 
of  superior   officers  with  due  regard  to   merit  and  expe- 
rience, security  of  tenure  and  protection  against  arbitrary 
dismissal,  exclusion  of  civic  employees  and  officials  from 
all  part  in  election   campaigns,  —  all  these  features  find 
place  in  the  German  system,  and  to  their  presence  may 
be  attributed  much  of  the  integrity  and  efficiency  which 
characterize  the  civic  bureaucracy,  particularly  in  Prussia 
but  to  an  almost  equal  degree  in  the  other  German  states. 
It  may  be  suggested  that  the  German  civic  official  soon  its  strong 
develops  the  methods  or  the  views  of  a  martinet,  that  he  features, 
quickly  loses  any  spirit  of  individual  initiative  which  he 
may  have  possessed  on  entering  the  service,  and  becomes 
in  due  time  little  more  than  an  instrument  for  performing 


206 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


Extensive 
use  of  pri- 
vate citizens 
in  municipal 
administra- 
tion. 


The  depart- 
ment of 
poor  relief 
as  an  ex- 
ample. 


mechanically  the  rigid  routine  committed  to  him  by  an 
immediate  superior.  It  may  also  be  true  that  the  Ger- 
man official,  whether  in  the  state  or  in  the  municipal 
service,  too  often  appears  to  forget,  in  his  dealings  with 
the  ordinary  citizen,  that  he  is  the  servant  and  not  the 
master  of  the  public.  The  Prussian  municipal  bureaucracy 
may  thus,  perhaps,  properly  be  termed  a  machine  ;  but  it  is 
one  of  the  most  efficient  administrative  machines  in  the 
world.  Its  general  esprit  de  corps,  its  impregnability  to 
corrupt  influences,  and  its  persevering  industry  have 
rightly  commanded  the  admiration  of  foreign  students. 

An  interesting  feature  of  the  German  municipal  ser- 
vice is  the  practice  of  intrusting  a  good  many  minor 
administrative  functions  to  private  citizens,  who  give 
their  assistance  without  any  remuneration  whatever 
even  though  the  duties  may  make  important  demands 
upon  their  time  and  patience.  An  excellent  example  of 
this  practice  is  seen  in  the  administration  of  the  poor- 
relief  systems  of  the  various  cities.  This  branch  of  mu- 
nicipal service  is,  like  the  other  departments,  put  in 
charge  of  a  deputation,  which,  because  of  the  compre- 
hensive work  under  its  supervision,  is  usually  very  large. 
The  Armen-Deputation  in  Berlin,  for  instance,  at  the  head 
of  which  is  Dr.  Emil  Miinsterberg,  a  prominent  member 
of  the  Magistrat  and  an  authority  of  international  repu- 
tation on  all  questions  concerning  the  care  of  the  poor, 
has  forty-five  members,  being  made  up  of  four  members  of 
the  administrative  board  besides  the  chairman,  seventeen 
councilmen,  eleven  citizen  deputies,  and  twelve  permanent 
civic  officials.  This  deputation,  subject  to  the  general 
supervision  and  control  of  the  Magistrat,  determines  the 
main  policy  to  be  followed  in  dealing  with  the  problems  of 
poverty ;  it  guides  and  directs  the  work  of  the  numerous 
district  committees  which  perform  the  actual  work  of 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  PRUSSIAN  CITIES  207 

relief,  supervises  all  the  city's  charitable  institutions,  and 
prepares  that  section  of  the  annual  budget  which  relates 
to  its  own  department.  For  the  carrying  out  of  the  work 
of  actual  relief  the  city  is  divided  into  twenty-six  poor- 
relief  sections  (Armenkreise),  each  with  its  chairman,  who 
is  in  every  case  one  of  the  members  of  the  deputation. 
Each  section,  again,  comprises  a  number  of  administrative 
districts  (Stadtbezirke),  of  which  there  are  in  all  over 
two  hundred  and  fifty.  Each  district  has  its  local  poor 
commission  (Armen-Kommission),  made  up  of  a  chairman, 
a  vice-chairman,  and  a  dozen  or  more  members  all  ap- 
pointed by  the  city  council,  —  one  of  them  a  physician, 
who  receives  a  small  annual  stipend,  the  others  private 
citizens  who  give  their  services  gratuitously.  Every  com- 
mission, in  its  turn,  divides  its  district  into  small  sections 
and  gives  to  each  of  its  members  immediate  supervision 
of  a  section.  In  this  way  the  administration  is  brought  Salutary 
into  the  closest  personal  touch  with  those  who  need  relief,  the  system, 
hard  and  fast  methods  of  inquiry  are  avoided,  and  local 
knowledge  is  made  to  do  service  as  a  safeguard  against 
imposture.  The  most  noteworthy  point  in  connection 
with  the  administration  of  this  department,  however,  is 
that  it  draws  into  the  direct  service  of  the  municipality 
a  very  large  number  of  voluntary  workers,  and  thus  re- 
lieves the  civic  treasury  of  what  would  in  an  American 
city  be  a  formidable  expense  were  it  to  undertake  this 
branch  of  administration  on  a  similar  scale.  In  Berlin 
over  forty-five  hundred  private  citizens  are  drawn,  in  some 
capacity  or  other,  into  the  service  of  this  one  department,1 
an  arrangement  which  has  served  to  give  to  the  Berlin 
poor-relief  administration  a  flexibility  and  a  responsiveness 
to  popular  feeling  that  is  not  surpassed  in  any  other  city 

1  Bericht  iiber  die  Gemeinde-Verwaltung  der  Stadt  Berlin,  1901  bis  1905,  I.  7. 


208  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

in  the  world,  and  which  should  make  one  careful  not  to 
generalize  too  broadly  concerning  the  "  bureaucratic " 
methods  of  Prussian  civic  administration. 

Berlin.  In  outlining  the    framework  of    Prussian  city  govern- 

ment, it  is  unnecessary  to  give  special  consideration 
to  Berlin ;  for,  unlike  the  French,  English,  and  American 
capitals,  the  Prussian  metropolis  is  not  under  a  special 
system  of  civic  administration,  but  is  in  general  governed 
like  the  other  Prussian  cities.  Its  police  department  is, 
to  be  sure,  in  charge  of  a  special  police  president,  who 
performs  functions  roughly  similar  to  those  of  the  prefect 
of  police  in  Paris,  and  it  deals  with  the  national  govern- 
ment directly  through  a  provincial  president  and  not 
through  subordinate  authorities ;  but  otherwise  it  presents 
no  very  important  deviations  from  the  general  type.1 

1  The  best  short  study  of  Berlin  municipal  organization  is  Heinrich  Dove's 
"Berlin,"  in  Schriften  des  Vereinsfur  Socialpolitik,  XVII.  i.  95-152.  See  also 
E.  Loening's  "Die  Verwaltung  der  Stadt  Berlin,"  in  Preussische  Jahrbiicher, 
Vols.  LV.-LVI.  passim;  and  R.  Eberstadt's  "  System  und  Princip  in  der  Ber- 
liner Stadtverwaltung,"  Ibid.  Vol.  LXX.  Data  relating  to  the  organization  and 
activities  of  the  civic  departments  may  be  found  in  the  Statistisches  Jahrbuch 
der  Stadt  Berlin,  published  annually  by  the  municipal  authorities,  as  well  as  in 
the  quinquennial  Benefit  uber  die  Gemeinde-  Verwaltung  der  Stadt  Berlin,  is- 
sued by  the  Magistral. 


CHAPTER    III 

THE    GOVERNMENT    OF    ENGLISH    CITIES 

OP  all  the  countries  of  Europe,  England  presents  the 
most  interesting  field  for  the  study  of  city  government 
and  administration,  a  preeminence  that  may  be  accounted 
for  partly  by  the  continuity  of  English  municipal  history, 
partly  by  the  wide  range  of  functions  directly  exercised 
by  the  civic  authorities,  and  partly  by  the  fact  that 
the  phenomenon  of  urban  concentration  has  been  more 
marked  in  England  than  in  any  other  European  state. 
Municipal  government  directly  concerns  a  larger  proportion 
of  the  national  population  in  England  than  it  does  in  any 
other  country  ;  indeed,  the  problem  of  governing  the  urban 
municipality  may  properly  be  said  to  be  a  problem  of  the 
whole  English  people. 

It  was  not  until  the  nineteenth  century  that  England  Growth 
felt  the  full  force  of  the  urban  movement.  Even  in  Saxon  cities.g  "* 
and  Norman  times,  it  is  true,  the  government  of  the  "  bor- 
ough "  was  regarded  as  a  problem  to  some  extent,  and 
throughout  the  mediaeval  period  the  boroughs  of  England, 
with  their  struggles  for  local  autonomy  and  their  successful 
clamors  for  political  recognition,  exercised  a  considerable 
influence  in  the  politics  of  the  nation ;  but  these  towns, 
which  have  since  received  so  much  attention  from  the  con- 
stitutional historian,  were  then,  for  the  most  part,  distinctly 
rural  units  whose  inhabitants  formed  but  an  insignificant 
proportion  of  the  total  population.  Even  in  1500  London  Mjd 

did  not  have  more  than  40,000  inhabitants,  and  no  other  die  Ages. 
p  209 


210  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

English  city  or  borough  approached  it  in  size.  Bristol  and 
York  had  populations  running  into  five  figures,  and  three 
or  four  other  cities  had  perhaps  passed  the  5000  mark  ;  but 
taken  all  together  the  urban  population  of  England  did  not 
at  this  time  exceed  150,000,  or  about  five  per  cent  of  the 
English  people  as  a  whole.1 

in  modem  During  the  Tudor  and  Stuart  periods  the  boroughs 
grew  slowly,  notwithstanding  the  constant  set-backs  which 
resulted  from  the  frequent  occurrence  of  epidemics  and 
plagues.  According  to  Macaulay's  estimate,  the  population 
of  London  had  by  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth  century 
reached  a  half-million,  a  figure  which  entitled  the  English 
metropolis  to  rank  second  only  to  Paris  among  the  great  cities 
of  Europe.  Such  progress  was,  however,  very  exceptional ; 
for  few  of  the  English  cities  did  much  more  than  keep  pace 
with  the  growth  of  the  national  population  until  well  into 
the  eighteenth  century,  when,  with  the  agricultural  and  in- 
dustrial revolutions,  the  urban  movement  received  a  decided 
impetus,  which  gained  in  strength  as  the  threshold  of  the 
nineteenth  century  was  passed.  The  national  population 
now  mounted  every  decade  by  leaps  and  bounds,  and  of  this  in- 
crease the  new  manufacturing  and  commercial  cities  received 
the  lion's  share.  It  has  been  estimated  that  in  1800  the  urban 
population  of  England  formed  not  more  than  one-quarter 
of  the  whole,  that  by  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century 
it  had  risen  to  not  less  than  one-half,  and  at  the  close  of 
the  century  to  more  than  three-quarters.2  England  has 
thus  come  to  be  the  classic  land  of  urban  concentration. 
The  bulk  of  her  population  has  shifted  from  rural  to  civic 

1  The  various  sources  for  the  study  of  early  English  municipal  history  and 
organization  are  indicated  in  Charles  Gross's  Bibliography  of  British  Municipal 
History  (New  York,  1897). 

2  Statistical  tables  showing  the  growth  of  urban  population  in  England  dur- 
ing this  period  may  be  found  in  A.  F.  Weber's  Growth  of  Cities  in  the  Nine- 
teenth Century  (New  York,  1901),  40-67. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  211 

environment,  until  in  the  twentieth  century  the  problems 
of  the  city  have  become  the  problems  of  substantially  the 
whole  people. 

The  history  of  English  municipal  organization  is  indeed  Evolution 
a  long  and  somewhat  curious  story;  but  throughout  the  loca^gov^ 
greater  part  of  the  development  the  external  forms  of  ernment- 
borough  government  have  undergone  but  little  change.1 
The  theory  of  municipal  administration  at  the  beginning 
of  the  nineteenth  century  was  not  essentially  different  from 
that  which  existed  in  Plantagenet  times  ;  for  the  chartered 
borough  of  the  Middle  Ages  possessed  the  right  to  select 
its  own  executive  officials  without  outside  interference,  to 
collect  taxes  from  its  citizens  through  its  own  taxgatherers, 
and  to  set  up  and  maintain  its  own  borough  courts.  In 
the  earlier  stages  of  its  history  it  had,  to  be  sure,  maintained 
a  form  of  government  which  was,  in  comparison  with  con- 
temporary systems  on  the  continent,  extremely  democratic. 
The  burghers  in  general  meeting  elected  their  mayor, 
coroners,  bailiffs,  and  other  local  officials,  every  adult  male 
inhabitant  having,  in  theory  at  any  rate,  a  part  in  the 
choice.  At  the  outset  there  were  probably,  in  most  of  the  The  ancient 
boroughs,  no  municipal  councils  ;  but  as  the  municipalities 
grew  in  population  the  burghers  seem  to  have  adopted 
the  practice  of  turning  over  the  actual  administration  to  an 
elective  committee  of  their  own  number,  or  a  sort  of  local 
council.  This  change,  however,  appears  to  have  paved  the 
way  for  an  ultimate  sacrifice  of  local  democracy ;  for,  al- 
though the  councillors  were  at  first  chosen  annually,  the 
habit  of  reflecting  them  year  after  year  served  in  due  time 
to  render  the  election  little  more  than  a  formality.  The 

1  On  the  development  of  borough  organization,  see  H.  A.  Merewether  and 
A.  J.  Stephens's  History  of  the  Boroughs  and  Municipal  Corporations  of  the 
United  Kingdom  (3  vols.,  London,  1835)  ;  and  Sidney  and  Beatrice  Webb's 
English  Local  Government  from  the  Revolution  to  the  Municipal  Corporations 
Act  (3  vols.,  London,  1904-1908),  especially  Vol.  III. 


212  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

its  organiza-  borough  electorate  continued  to  include  all  the  "  freemen 
veiopmentT  °f  the  town  "  ;  but,  with  the  growing  importance  of  the 
guilds  in  local  administration  and  the  steadily  developing 
exclusiveness  of  these  organizations,  the  list  of  freemen 
gradually  narrowed,  until  by  the  close  of  the  fifteenth  cen- 
tury the  freemen  of  the  borough  often  formed  but  a  small 
proportion  of  its  population.1  With  this  growth  of  oligarchy 
the  perpetuation  of  the  municipal  councils  by  cooptation 
became  common,  and  the  governing  body  of  the  borough 
settled  into  a  close  corporation. 

The  borough       The  framework   of   borough  organization  was   at   this 
stage  substantially  the  same  as  it  is  to-day.     At  the  head 


stuart          of  tke  administration  was  a  mayor  elected  by  the  council  ; 

periods. 

then  there  were  a  number  of  magistrates  known  as  alder- 
men, similarly  selected  ;  and,  finally,  there  was  a  council 
chosen  by  the  burgesses  or  freemen.  The  mayor,  alder- 
men, councillors,  and  freemen  made  up  the  "  corporation  " 
of  the  borough,  and  exercised  the  powers  of  the  municipal- 
ity, including  the  right  to  elect  representatives  to  the 
House  of  Commons.  This  last-named  privilege  is  of  high 
significance  ;  for  it  is  not  improbable  that  during  the  sev- 
enteenth and  eighteenth  centuries  the  oligarchic  organiza- 
tion would  have  broken  down  if  the  crown  had  not  been 
so  desirous  of  maintaining  it  as  a  means  of  securing  sup- 
porters in  Parliament.  In  so  far  as  the  list  of  freemen 
could  be  kept  within  narrow  limits  the  crown  had  a  better 
opportunity  to  control  the  election  of  borough  represent- 
atives in  the  House  of  Commons  ;  for  it  was  obviously 
easier  to  dominate  a  small  self-perpetuating  body  than  the 
whole  mass  of  borough  inhabitants.  No  wonder,  there- 
fore, that  whenever  the  crown  amended  borough  charters 
or  gave  new  ones  it  stood  ready  to  assist  the  movement  to 

1  On  this  development,  see  C.  W.  Colby  on  "  The  Growth  of  Oligarchy  in 
English  Towns,"  in  English  Historical  Review,  V.  633-653. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  213 

municipal  oligarchy.  Indeed,  when  some  of  the  larger  bor- 
oughs showed  a  disposition  to  oppose  the  royal  policy,  it 
was  the  practice  of  the  Stuart  sovereigns  to  secure,  by 
quo  warranto  proceedings,  an  annulment  of  their  charters, 
and  then  to  grant  new  ones  which  were  designed  not  to 
improve  the  efficiency  of  borough  government  but  to  afford 
means  whereby  the  selection  of  borough  representatives 
might  be  controlled. 

The  revolution  of  1688  did  not  bring  about  any  marked  The  borough 
change  in  the  structure  of  borough  government :  the  close  amove-16 
corporations  still  remained  in  power.  Royal  interference  rians> 
with  the  charters  ceased  for  the  most  part,  it  is  true ; l  but 
the  new  charters  given  by  the  Hanoverian  sovereigns  dif- 
fered little  from  those  granted  by  the  Stuarts.  Despite  the 
sweeping  changes  made  in  the  local  government  systems 
of  France  and  Prussia  during  this  period,  the  old  municipal 
regime  in  England  remained  as  firmly  intrenched  as  ever, 
—  a  situation  the  more  unfortunate  from  the  fact  that, 
with  the  rapid  growth  of  the  towns  during  the  industrial 
revolution,  the  close  corporations  proved  entirely  unable  to 
cope  with  the  new  problems  of  urban  administration. 
From  such  exigencies  the  larger  boroughs  sought  relief  by 
applying  directly  to  Parliament  for  special  legislation,  as  a 
result  of  which  many  of  them  obtained  the  appointment  of 
commissions  or  boards  that  were  empowered  to  provide  the 
more  important  municipal  services.  It  was  by  such  com- 
missions that  many  English  towns  were  provided  with 
their  first  systems  of  water  supply,  sewerage,  and  public 
lighting.  As  this  practice  of  relying  upon  commissions 
developed,  the  "  corporations "  came  in  time  to  do  little 
more  than  elect  the  borough  representatives  in  the  House 
of  Commons. 

1  F.  W.  Maitland,  Township  and  Borough  (London,  1898),  95. 


214 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


Borough 
government 
in  the  first 
three  dec- 
ades of  the 
nineteenth 
century. 


The  era  of 
reform. 


The  royal 
commission 
of  1833. 


It  may  seem  strange  that  England,  a  country  which  was 
in  the  earlier  part  of  the  nineteenth  century  serving  as  a 
model  of  successful  representative  government  to  the  na- 
tions of  the  continent,  should  have  continued  to  maintain 
in  full  force  a  system  of  local  administration  that  was  in 
reality  far  less  representative  in  character  than  the  munici- 
pal system  of  either  France  or  Prussia.  This  perpetua- 
tion of  oligarchy  in  English  borough  government  may, 
however,  be  explained  partly  by  the  inherent  conserva- 
tism of  Englishmen  in  regard  to  their  political  institu- 
tions, partly  by  the  spirit  of  political  optimism  which 
pervaded  the  land  in  the  years  following  the  victory  at 
Waterloo,  partly  by  the  overpowering  parliamentary 
strength  of  vested  interests,  and  partly,  no  doubt,  by 
the  popular  ignorance  as  to  the  exact  condition  of 
municipal  affairs.  The  movement  for  reform  in  local 
government,  though  it  gained  some  headway  during  the 
first  quarter  of  the  nineteenth  century,  was  compelled, 
for  a  substantial  impetus,  to  await  the  culmination  of 
the  more  important  and  more  aggressive  agitation  for 
the  reform  of  Parliament. 

The  great  reform  measure  of  1832  first  brought  the 
question  of  municipal  reorganization  well  within  the 
sphere  of  practical  politics,1  and  the  reformed  House 
of  Commons  lost  little  time  in  attempting  to  deal  with 
the  matter.  By  an  act  passed  in  1833  the  cities  of 
Scotland  were  first  attended  to,  and  later  in  the  same 
year  a  royal  commission  was  appointed  to  investigate 
affairs  in  the  boroughs  of  England  and  Wales.  This 
body  was  instructed  to  collect  information  in  regard 
to  existing  defects  in  the  municipal  system,  to  inquire 
into  the  methods  of  selecting  borough  officers,  and  in 


1 2-3  William  IV.  c.  45. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  215 

general  to  look  into  the  administrative  conditions  of  all 
the  chartered  municipalities.1 

The  royal  commissioners  performed  their  work  promptly  its  investi- 
and  thoroughly,  visiting  many  of  the  boroughs,  examining  fJJUUgh* 
their  accounts  and  records  minutely,  and  taking  a  large  affairs- 
amount  of  evidence.     With  this  body  of  facts  as  a  basis, 
they  presently  laid  before  Parliament  their  famous  report, 
a  state  paper  which  is  distinguished  among  documents  of 
its  kind  for  its  comprehensiveness,  clearness,  and  vigor  of 
statement.2 

After  touching  briefly  upon  the  manner  in  which  the 
municipal  corporations  had  come  into  existence  and  upon 
the  general  nature  of  their  charters,  the  report  proceeded 
to  lay  bare  the  more  important  anomalies  and  abuses 
which  had  been  disclosed  by  an  examination  of  affairs  in 
two  hundred  and  eighty-five  boroughs.  It  laid  emphasis 
upon  the  unrepresentative  character  of  the  borough  au- 
thorities, and  upon  the  fact  that  these  authorities  had  long 
since  lost  the  confidence  of  the  local  public,  as  was  evi- 
denced by  the  strong  popular  feeling  that  the  "  corpora- 
tion "  could  no  longer  be  relied  upon  to  perform  any 
municipal  functions  of  importance,  and  that  public  services 
could  be  properly  provided  only  by  the  appointment  of 
special  commissions.  In  nearly  all  the  boroughs,  it  was 
shown,  the  voters  comprised  but  a  very  small  percentage 

1  Much  interesting  data  relating  to  the  discussions  preliminary  to  the  appoint- 
ment of  the  commission,  as  well  as  concerning  its  composition,  its  methods  of 
investigation,  and  the  obstacles  which  it  had  to  surmount,  may  be  found  in 
S.  and  B.  Webb's  English  Local  Government,  III.  ch.  xi. 

2  This  main  report,  entitled  First  Report  of  the  Municipal  Corporations  Com- 
mission, was  published  in  April,  1835,  in  five  volumes,  the  first  of  which  con- 
tains the  report  itself  and  the  other  four  the  evidence  gathered  by  the  commis- 
sioners.    Four  years  later  the  whole  was  indexed  in  the  Analytical  Index  to  the 
First  Report  of  the  Municipal  Corporations  Commission  (London,  1839).     The 
Second  Report  of  the  Municipal  Corporations  Commission  (London,  1837 )  deals 
with  the  city  of  London  only. 


216 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


Conditions 
disclosed  by 
the  investi- 
gations. 


Mismanage- 
ment and 
corruption. 


of  the  population,  and  admission  to  the  ranks  of  burgesses 
was  not  regulated  by  any  reasonable  rules.1 

In  most  of  the  boroughs,  the  commissioners  reported, 
the  governing  authorities  consisted  of  a  mayor  and  a 
council,  the  latter  being  usually  made  up  of  both  aldermen 
and  councillors.  These  two  classes  of  members  ordinarily 
met  together,  but  in  a  few  instances  the  aldermen  were 
accustomed  to  meet  separately  for  the  consideration  of 
special  matters.  The  council-meetings  were  almost  in- 
variably secret ;  and  as  a  rule  no  report  of  the  proceed- 
ings was  ever  given  to  the  public,  —  a  practice  of  conducting 
municipal  business  to  which  the  commissioners  attributed 
many  evils.  They  found,  for  instance,  that  local  offices 
were  distributed  by  the  councillors  among  their  relatives 
and  friends  with  little  or  no  regard  to  the  qualifications 
which  the  appointees  possessed ;  that  in  many  cases  non- 
resident municipal  officers  drew  their  stipends  and  gave  no 
services  in  return  ;  that  sinecure  posts,  on  which  much 
public  money  was  expended  with  no  tangible  return, 
abounded  in  all  the  larger  boroughs ;  and  that  a  single  in- 
dividual sometimes  held  several  offices,  drawing  the  full 
salaries  attached  to  them,  but  being  entirely  unable  to 
perform  all  the  duties  involved.  In  a  word,  the  commis- 
sioners found  borough  administration  characterized  by 
extravagance,  inefficiency,  and  even  dishonesty. 

The  report  further  drew  attention  to  the  loose  and  ir- 
regular manner  in  which  the  accounts  of  the  boroughs  were 
kept,  and  to  the  frequent  misapplication  and  even  peculation 

1  In  the  212  boroughs  from  which  definite  figures  could  be  obtained  the  total 
population  was  1,800,000.  Of  this  number  somewhat  more  than  88,000,  or  less 
than  five  per  cent,  were  "freemen  "  ;  Liverpool,  with  a  population  of  165,000, 
had  about  5000  voters ;  Portsmouth,  with  46,000  inhabitants,  had  only  102 ; 
Plymouth,  with  76,000,  had  only  437  freemen,  of  whom  145  were  non-residents. 
This  condition  of  affairs  was  more  or  less  characteristic  of  all  the  other  boroughs. 
See  the  First  Report,  I.  32-33. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  217 

of  public  funds  which  the  system  of  accounting  not  only 
permitted  but  encouraged.  The  property  and  funds  of 
the  borough  were  in  many  cases,  it  was  shown,  openly  re- 
garded by  the  members  of  the  governing  body,  not  in  the 
light  of  trusts  held  by  them  for  the  borough  population  as 
a  whole,  but  as  their  own  patrimony,  —  an  idea  which 
they  frequently  acted  upon  by  converting  borough  property 
to  their  private  use,  and  by  spending  for  their  own  profit 
and  pleasure  moneys  that  were  sorely  needed  for  public 
purposes.  So  many  specific  instances  of  these  evils  were 
given  by  the  commissioners  as  to  show  clearly  that  in 
most  of  the  boroughs  all  the  traditions  of  local  administra- 
tion had  become  unsound. 

Taken  as  a  whole,  the  report  disclosed  a  state  of  affairs 
undoubtedly  worse  than  that  which  has  marked  the  ad- 
ministration of  any  American  city  even  when  things  have 
been  at  their  most  critical  stage.  There  are,  to  be  sure, 
some  good  reasons  for  thinking  that  the  commissioners 
portrayed  the  situation  as  somewhat  worse  than  it  really 
was ;  *  but  that  it  was  bad  enough  the  evidence  which 
they  gathered  shows  unmistakably.  If  students  of  mu- 
nicipal government  find  to-day  much  that  is  admirable 
both  in  the  framework  of  government  and  in  the  actual 
administration  of  English  cities,  they  should  not  forget  that 
only  two  or  three  generations  ago  the  conditions  in 
English  cities  were  about  as  bad  as  they  could  well  be. 
The  change,  furthermore,  has  not  been  brought  about  by  any  Enormity  of 

,.  ,.    ,,  .  .    .       -,  the  change 

sweeping  reconstruction  of  the  organs  of  municipal  gov-  Sincei835. 
ernment ;   for  these  are  now   almost  exactly  the   same  in 
structure  and  in  functions  as  they  were  before  1835.     It 
was  the  spirit  not  the  form  of  local  administration  that  was 
profoundly  altered  during  the  epoch  of  reform ;  the  real 

1  These  reasons  are  given  in  Webb's  English  Local  Government,  III.  718-737. 


218 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


English  ex- 
perience and 
American 
problems. 


Results  of 
the  investi- 
gations of 
1833. 


The  "Whig 
Bill  "of 
1835. 


change  was  that  the  citizens  came  to  have  a  genuine  voice 
in  the  administration  of  their  own  local  affairs,  —  that 
municipal  oligarchy  gave  way  to  municipal  democracy. 

From  English  municipal  experience  in  the  nineteenth 
century  one  may,  indeed,  draw  two  somewhat  palpable 
generalizations.  One  is  that,  however  corrupt  and  in- 
efficient the  administration  of  the  cities  in  any  country 
may  become,  the  situation  is  never  entirely  hopeless. 
Those  friends  of  municipal  reform  who  have,  perhaps,  been 
too  ready  to  confess  their  utter  discouragement  with  the 
state  of  things  in  the  United  States  may  well  find  new 
inspiration  by  comparing  present  conditions  in  English 
cities  with  those  which  existed  there  three-quarters  of  a 
century  ago.  In  the  second  place,  the  course  of  events  in 
England  has  shown  that  no  radical  reconstruction  of  local 
organs  of  government  is  necessary  in  order  to  transform  a 
corrupt  and  inefficient  administration  into  one  which  re- 
flects at  every  turn  the  qualities  of  honesty  and  power. 

In  due  time  the  report  on  municipal  corporations 
was  laid  before  Parliament;  and  presently  Lord  John 
Russell  came  forward  with  a  measure,  commonly  called 
the  Whig  Bill,  designed  to  effect  a  general  reform  of  the 
abuses  which  the  commissioners  had  brought  to  light.1 
By  the  terms  of  this  bill  all  provisions  in  borough  charters 
inconsistent  with  the  new  arrangements  were  to  be  an- 
nulled, in  order  that  all  municipal  charters,  though  nomi- 
nally remaining  in  force,  might  be  brought  into  entire 
uniformity.  The  idea  of  a  municipal  corporation  was  to 
be  restored  to  its  original  place  as  "  the  legal  personifica- 
tion of  the  local  community,  elected  by,  acting  for,  and 

1  Hansard's  Parliamentary  Debates,  3d  series,  XXVIII.  541-558  (June  5, 
1835).  On  Russell's  share  in  drafting  and  promoting  the  measure,  see  Sir  Spen- 
cer Walpole's  Life  of  Lord  John  Russell  (2d  ed.,  2  vols.,  London,  1889),  I. 
243  ff. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  219 

responsible  to  the  inhabitants  "  ;  and  it  was  further  pro- 
vided that  the  governing  organ  of  the  corporation  should 
consist  of  a  body  of  councillors  elected  for  a  three-year 
term  by  the  equal  and  direct  votes  of  all  the  local  tax- 
payers, and  that  any  inhabitant  of  the  borough  who  had 
paid  rates  for  three  consecutive  years  should  be  entitled 
to  vote  at  local  elections. 

A  distinguishing  feature  of  the  bill  was  the  signal  step  itschief  pro- 
which  it  proposed  in  the  direction  of  strengthening  the  V1S10D8- 
control  and  supervision  of  the  central  over  the  municipal 
authorities,  —  a  superintendence  which  had  thus  far  been 
almost  entirely  lacking.  It  also  provided  that  the  bor- 
ough magistrates,  hitherto  appointed  by  the  municipal 
corporation,  should  thenceforth  be  named  by  the  crown. 
The  bill  further  sought  to  define  more  precisely  the  legal 
sphere  of  municipal  administration,  and  to  set  some  fixed 
limits  to  the  authority  of  local  officers.  In  general  it  made 
the  field  controlled  by  the  municipal  council  somewhat 
narrower  than  it  had  been ;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  it 
added  some  new  powers  to  the  body  by  giving  it  defini- 
tive jurisdiction  in  the  collection  and  expenditure  of 
borough  revenues,  in  the  disposition  of  municipal  property 
and  the  care  of  municipal  police,  in  the  making  of  local 
by-laws  or  ordinances  and  the  appointing  of  all  municipal 
officers,  and,  finally,  in  the  matter  of  granting  liquor  li- 
censes. It  was  anticipated  by  those  who  framed  the  meas- 
ure that,  if  the  new  regime  proved  efficient  in  operation, 
more  powers  might  be  intrusted  to  the  council  from  time 
to  time  by  amending  legislation. 

The  bill  proposed  that  its  provisions  should  be  applied  its  scope, 
to  the  one  hundred  and  seventy-eight  boroughs  named  in  an 
attached  schedule,  —  a  number  which  did  not,  however, 
include  all  the  municipal  boroughs  of  England  and  Wales, 
for  many  of  the  small  municipalities  were  not  deemed  of 


220  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

sufficient  importance  to  warrant  their  insertion  in  the  list. 
London  was  likewise  excluded  from  the  application  of  the 
bill;  for  it  was  thought  that  the  metropolis  might,  on  ac- 
count of  its  great  size  and  its  special  problems  of  adminis- 
tration, later  be  dealt  with  in  a  separate  measure.  As  will 
be  seen,  however,  no  reform  was  accomplished  in  London 
until  several  more  decades  had  passed ;  but  the  govern- 
ment of  practically  all  the  other  important  boroughs  was, 
by  the  provisions  of  the  bill,  rendered  uniform,  and 
it  was  further  stipulated  that,  although  municipal  char- 
ters were  still  to  be  given  by  the  crown,  no  new  charter 
should  be  issued  save  in  conformity  with  the  uniform 
arrangements. 

Opposition  The  bill  met  with  some  opposition  from  the  Tories  in 
ure. €  "  the  House  of  Commons  ;  but,  since  its  general  principles 
were  acceptable  to  men  of  moderate  views  like  Sir  Robert 
Peel  and  his  followers,  it  went  through  the  House  with- 
out any  important  changes,  —  an  evidence  of  the  general 
discredit  into  which  the  old  municipal  system  had  fallen 
with  all  parties.  In  the  House  of  Lords,  however,  the 
influence  of  opposing  interests  was  more  powerful,  and 
here  the  measure  encountered  its  chief  obstacles.1  Though 
deterred  from  rejecting  it  as  a  whole  by  thought  of  the 
distinct  impression  which  the  report  of  the  commissioners 
had  made  throughout  the  country,  the  Lords  nevertheless 
made  a  .determined  effort  to  destroy  the  effectiveness  of  the 
measure  by  proposing  amendments  to  it, — one,  for  instance, 
depriving  the  municipal  councils  of  all  jurisdiction  over  the 
granting  of  liquor  licenses,  another  stipulating  that  one- 
fourth  of  the  councillors  should  be  elected  for  life  terms, 

1  On  the  attitude  of  the  various  parliamentary  leaders  toward  the  bill,  see,  in 
addition  to  Walpole's  Life  of  Lord  John  Russell,  Graham  Wallas's  Life  of 
Francis  Place  (London,  1898),  Parker's  Life  of  Sir  Eobert  Peel  (London,  1899), 
and  Stuart  J.  Reid's  Life  and  Letters  of  the  First  Lord  Durham  (2  vols.,  Lon- 
don, 1906). 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  221 

and  still  others  making  similar  changes  in  the  direction  of 
conservatism.     In  spite  of  this  action,  which  indicated  a 
wide,  divergence  in  views  between  the  two  branches  of  Par- 
liament, the  two  Houses  ultimately  arranged  a  compromise.  Compro- 
In  regard  to  the  license  question,  they  decided  to  drop  the 


clause  altogether  and  leave  the  jurisdiction,  as  heretofore,  byth.is°p- 

'    position. 

with  the  justices  of  the  peace.  On  the  life-membership 
proposition  the  Commons  met  the  Lords  halfway  by  agree- 
ing that  the  councillors,  themselves  elected  for  three  years, 
should  elect  one-third  of  their  own  number  to  bear  the  title 
of  aldermen  and  to  remain  members  of  the  council  for  twice 
the  period,  a  device  which  would,  it  was  thought,  secure 
an  element  of  stability  in  the  council.  With  these  and 
some  other  changes  the  bill  was  passed  in  September,  1835, 
going  on  the  statute-books  as  the  Municipal  Corporations 
Act  ;  1  and  for  three-quarters  of  a  century  its  main  outlines 
have  since  remained  unaltered. 

The  act  of  1835  may  scarcely  be    regarded    as  having  TheMu- 
effected  any  important  break  in  the  continuity  of  English  potations01" 
municipal  development.     It  did  not,  like  the  French  de-  Actofi835. 
crees  of  1789  and  1800,  or  like  the  Prussian  enactments  of 
1806—1808,    make    any    sweeping    changes    either    in    the 
framework  of  borough  organization  or  in  the  relation  of 
the  municipality  to  the  state.     It  endeavored  simply  to 
put  into  active  operation  what    had   for  many  centuries 
been   the  theory  of  English   borough   administration  but 
had   long    since   become  little  more    than  a    theory.     It 
effected  a  change  in  the  spirit  rather  than  in  the  form  of 

Not  re- 

local  government.     Even  by   its   most  ardent  supporters  gardedasin. 


it  does  not  appear  to  have  been  regarded  as  a  code  that 
would,  like  the  Great  Reform  Act  of  1832,  effect  a  final  theory  of 

local  gov- 

solution  of  all  the  problems  with  which  it   undertook  to  emment. 


6-6  William  IV.  c.  76. 


222 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


The  recodi- 
fication  of 
1882. 


The  areas 
of  urban 
government 
in  England. 


The  munici- 
pal borough. 


deal.  The  framers  of  the  measure  did  not  give  the  munici- 
pal councils  any  very  wide  range  of  powers  at  the  outset, 
transferring  to  them  only  those  functions  which  had  been 
exercised  by  various  local  boards ;  but,  as  time  went  on 
and  the  council  showed  its  capabilities,  Parliament  was 
found  ready  to  respond  with  special  statutes  amending 
the  original  act  in  such  ways  as  to  increase  the  scope  of 
the  council's  jurisdiction.  So  many  such  statutes  were 
passed,  indeed,  during  the  half-century  following  1835 
that  before  the  interval  had  elapsed  the  multiplication  of 
these  amending  enactments  had  created  much  confusion. 
In  1882,  therefore,  it  was  arranged  that  the  whole  mass  of 
legislation  affecting  the  government  of  boroughs  should  be 
consolidated  into  one  comprehensive  statute,  which  took 
the  form  of  the  Municipal  Corporations  Consolidation  Act 
of  that  year,  a  measure  that  now  forms  the  chief  legal 
basis  of  English  municipal  government.1 

Consideration  of  the  development  of  English  municipal 
government  has  thus  far  been  limited  to  one  class  of  ur- 
ban units,  the  borough.  It  should  be  noted  at  this  point, 
however,  that  the  borough  is  not  the  only  unit  of  urban 
administration  in  England,  and  that  even  the  term 
"  borough  "  is  not  itself  applied  uniformly.  One  speaks, 
for  instance,  of  "  municipal  boroughs,"  "  county  boroughs," 
"cities,"  and  "urban  districts,"  the  first  three  differing 
very  slightly  from  one  another  in  the  nature  of  their  ad- 
ministration, the  last-named  presenting  a  type  of  local 
government  quite  different  from  the  others.  Most  of  the 
English  "boroughs"  are  municipal  boroughs,  subject  in  cer- 
tain respects  to  supervision  by  the  authorities  of  the  ad- 
ministrative counties  in  which  they  happen  to  lie.  The 

1  45-46  Victoria,  c.  50.  This  code,  with  the  amending  legislation,  may  be 
conveniently  found  in  Rawlinson  and  Johnston's  Municipal  Corporations  Acts 
and  other  Enactments  (9th  ed.,  London,  1903). 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  223 

county  boroughs,  on  the  other  hand,  are  not  subject  to  The  county 
any  supervision  by  the  county  authorities ;  they  are  not  * 
even  represented  in  the  county  council,  but  through  their 
own  borough  authorities  exercise  the  powers  which  are  ordi- 
narily vested  with  the  former  body.1  Since,  however,  the  ju- 
risdiction of  the  county  authorities  is  in  any  case  connected 
chiefly  with  questions  of  sanitation  and  the  protection  of 
the  public  health,  the  two  classes  of  boroughs  are  not 
essentially  different  in  status :  their  governing  bodies,  or 
councils,  are  substantially  the  same  in  structure  and  in 
functions.2  Some  boroughs,  again,  are  called  cities;  but  The  city, 
it  ought  to  be  made  clear  that  the  distinction  between  an 
ordinary  borough  and  a  city  is  not  in  England  one  of  rela- 
tive population  or  of  differences  in  the  form  or  scope  of 
the  municipal  charter.  The  title  of  "  city  "  is  in  England 
borne  by  a  comparatively  small  number  of  boroughs  — 
some  large  and  some  small,  some  ancient  and  some  modern 
—  which  are  or  have  been  the  seats  of  bishops  or  arch- 
bishops (as  York,  Westminster,  and  Oxford),  or  have,  on 
the  other  hand,  received  the  title  by  special  patent  from  the 
crown  (as  Leeds  and  Sheffield).  In  neither  the  form  nor 
the  functions  of  government  is  there  any  difference  be- 
tween the  city  and  the  ordinary  borough. 

The    distinction  between    the  borough   and    the  urban  The  urban 
district  is   somewhat  more  important.     An  urban  district 
is  an  area  and  group  of  population  which  has  not  received 
a  borough  charter,  but  which   has  by  the  provisions   of 
the  Local  Government  Act  of  1894 8  been  equipped  with  a 

1  There  are  at  present  seventy  county  boroughs,  each  with  a  population 
exceeding  50,000.    Any  borough  with  a  population  above  this  figure  may  be 
made  a  county  borough  by  an  order  of  the  Local  Government  Board.    See  51-52 
Victoria,  c.  41,  §  52. 

2  On  this  point  see  R.  S.  Wright  and  H.  Hobhouse's  Local  Government  and 
Local  Taxation  (2d  ed.,  London,  1894),  24-26. 

8  56-57  Victoria,  c.  73.     See  also  R.  H.  Hadden's  Handbook  to  the  Local 
Government  Act  of  1894  (London,  1895). 


224 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


Importance 
of  the  bor- 
ough among 
areas  of 
local  gov- 
ernment. 


Borough 
charters. 


framework  of  government  somewhat  simpler  than  that 
of  the  borough.1  At  present  there  are  more  than  800 
of  these  communities,  with  populations  ranging  from 
1000  to  75,000 ;  and  new  districts  may  be  created  from 
time  to  time  by  the  joint  action  of  the  county  council  and 
the  Local  Government  Board.  Every  borough,  indeed,  is 
ipso  facto  an  urban  district ;  for  the  borough  council  pos- 
sesses any  power  which  may  be  given  to  the  authorities  of 
any  such  district.  In  brief,  then,  any  non-rural  area  which 
enjoys  local  self-government  is  an  urban  district ;  if  it  has 
at  any  time  received  a  royal  charter,  it  is  a  borough  ;  if  it 
has  been  removed  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  administra- 
tive county  in  which  it  is  situated,  it  is  a  county  borough, 
otherwise  it  is  termed  a  municipal  borough  ;  if  it  is  or  has 
been  the  head  of  a  diocese,  or  if  it  has  received  the  title  by 
royal  patent,  it  is  a  city. 

Of  these  different  areas  of  urban  government  the  most  im- 
portant, from  the  standpoint  of  the  student  of  comparative 
local  administration,  is  the  borough.  The  act  of  1835 
enumerated  one  hundred  and  seventy-eight  boroughs,  to 
which  its  provisions  were  forthwith  made  applicable  ;  and  it 
arranged  that  the  crown  should  charter  new  boroughs  only  in 
accordance  with  the  terms  of  the  enactment,  a  provision 
which  was  retained  in  the  act  of  1882.  England  has,  there- 
fore, neither  the  general  nor  the  special  charter  system 
familiar  in  the  United  States.  Each  borough  has  its  own 
particular  charter,  sometimes  of  very  ancient  date  but 
always  granted  by  and  in  the  name  of  the  crown.  Further- 
more, every  application  for  a  borough  charter  is  considered 
on  its  individual  merits.  Though  size  is  a  circumstance 
naturally  taken  into  account,  there  is  no  arrangement 
whereby  an  urban  unit,  however  large  its  population  hap- 

1  For  a  discussion  of  the  urban  district  council,  see  J.  Redlich  and  F.  W. 
Hirst,  Local  Government  in  England  (2  vols.,  London,  1903),  II.  118  ff. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  225 

pens  to  be,  may  obtain  a  borough  charter  as  a  matter  of 
course.  On  the  other  hand,  all  the  charters,  ancient  and 
modern,  are  now  substantially  alike  in  all  their  impor- 
tant provisions,  and  all  the  boroughs  have  exactly  the  same  teen.  n 
organs  of  local  government.  Despite  this  uniformity,  how- 
ever, the  powers  possessed  by  these  organs  in  different 
boroughs  show  considerable  variation,  for  the  reason  that 
Parliament  grants,  from  time  to  time,  special  privileges  to 
the  authorities  of  one  borough  which  it  does  not  grant  to 
those  of  another,  —  a  practice  upon  which  there  are,  of 
course,  no  constitutional  restrictions  in  England,  as  there 
are  in  many  American  states.1 

When  any  community  desires  a  borough  charter,  the  first  Howob- 
step  toward  securing  it  is  the  drawing  up  of  a  petition  *' 
which,  before  it  becomes  of  service,  must  be  signed  by  at 
least  a  majority  of  the  ratepayers  of  the  locality.  This 
petition,  addressed  to  the  crown,  is  referred  to  the  Privy 
Council;  but  as  a  matter  of  practice  it  really  goes  —  as 
those  who  are  at  all  familiar  with  the  workings  of  the 
English  system  of  national  government  need  scarcely  be 
told  —  not  to  the  Privy  Council  but  to  the  Cabinet,  and  the 
member  of  the  Cabinet  to  whom  it  is  invariably  referred  is 
the  president  of  the  Local  Government  Board.  In  any  case 
the  receipt  of  the  petition  must  be  notified  to  this  officer, 
and  also  to  the  county  council  within  those  jurisdiction  the 
petitioners  reside.  It  is  also  published  in  the  official  ga- 
zette. If  the  county  council  and  the  authorities  of  adjoin-  Q  dand 
ing  municipalities  interpose  no  objection,  and  if  not  more  unopposed 

.     applications 

than  one- twentieth  of  the  ratepayers  present  a  counter-peti-  for  charters. 

1  Under  the  title  of  "  Constitutional  Limitations  relating  to  Cities  and  their 
Affairs,"  one  of  my  students,  Mr.  R.  W.  Skinner,  Jr.,  has  prepared  and  pub- 
lished in  the  Annals  of  the  American  Academy  of  Political  and  Social  Science 
(XXVII.  232)  an  elaborate  table  which  clearly  shows  that  in  the  United  States 
the  practice  of  granting  special  powers  to  particular  cities  is  being  more  and 
more  restricted  by  constitutional  provisions. 
Q 


226  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

tion,  the  application  for  a  charter  may  be  granted  by  the 
.crown  without  reference  to  Parliament ;  and  in  such  cases 
the  request  is  ordinarily  so  granted.  If,  however,  the  petition 
be  opposed  in  either  of  the  ways  above  mentioned,  the  ap- 
plication is  laid  before  Parliament,  and  is  considered  by  a 
joint  committee  of  the  two  Houses  constituted  for  the  con- 
sideration of  this  and  similar  petitions.  This  committee 
hears  whatever  facts  and  arguments  are  laid  before  it  by 
either  supporters  or  opponents  of  the  application,  and  re- 
ports its  decision  to  Parliament.  If  it  recommends  that  the 
petition  be  granted,  Parliament  usually  authorizes  the  giv- 
ing of  a  charter,  which  is  issued  in  the  name  of  the  crown ; 
in  fact,  even  if  the  committee  reports  unfavorably,  Parlia- 
ment may  and  sometimes  does  grant  the  prayer  of  the 
petition,  but  not  often. 

Applications  In  order  that  an  application  for  incorporation  as  a 
refused.  borough  may  receive  favorable  consideration,  it  does  not 
have  to  come  from  any  definite  number  of  ratepayers ; 
neither  by  law  nor  by  custom  is  there  any  fixed  minimum 
which  the  population  of  a  locality  must  exceed  before  it  may 
be  admitted  to  the  category  of  municipal  boroughs.  Still, 
a  reasonable  showing  in  the  matter  of  populousness  is  or- 
dinarily insisted  upon ;  and  as  a  rule  petitions  for  borough 
charters  come  from  the  larger  urban  districts  only.  That 
the  scrutiny  which  the  authorities  apply  to  applications  is 
somewhat  strict  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  during  the  period 
from  1882  to  1907  they  refused  nearly  one-third  of  all  the 
requests  received  by  them  :  out  of  the  more  than  sixty 
petitions  "presented  to  them  (most  of  them  opposed  ones) 
they  denied  about  twenty-five.  Nevertheless,  the  number 
of  chartered  boroughs  has  almost  doubled  since  1835,  pres- 
ent statistics  showing  about  350  in  all.  At  the  head  of  the 
list  is  Liverpool  with  its  population  of  about  three-quarters 
of  a  million,  and  at  the  foot  is  Hedon  with  slightly  over  a 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  227 

single  thousand  ;  more  than  thirty  boroughs  are  above  the 
100,000  mark,  and  nearly  seventy  have  populations  ranging 
below  5000.1 

When  the  commission  made  its  investigations  prior  to  Borough 
the  legislation  of  1835,  it  was  able  to  report  that  the  boun-  boundaries- 
daries    of   most   boroughs   were   defined    with  "tolerable 
accuracy."     As  a  matter  of  fact,  these  bounds  had  in  most 
cases  been  fixed  in  times  so  remote  as  to  be  beyond  the 
range  of  legal  memory  ;  and  it  was  not  deemed  advisable 
that  any  general  readjustment  should  be  undertaken,  lest 
such  a  proposal  should  arouse  in  opposition  a  local  senti- 
ment that  would  put  a  new  obstacle  in  the  path  of  the 
general  proposals  for  borough  reorganization.     After   the  The  Bound- 
act  of  1835  had  been  safely  steered  through  Parliament,  "issionTf" 
however,  a   Municipal   Boundaries   Commission    was    ap-  1835< 
pointed,  with  instructions  to  go  from  borough  to  borough 
setting  the  metes  and  bounds  of  each  municipality,  but 
adhering  as  closely  as  possible  to  the  traditional  borough 
limits.2     Only  when  there  was  a  clear  case  for  alteration 
was  any  change  to  be  made.     In  due  time  the  commission 
presented    its    recommendations  to  Parliament  ;  8  but   no 
legislation  followed,  and  the  ancient  lines  of  demarcation 
remained  intact.     The  importance  of  the  report  is,  however, 
to  be  found  in  the  fact  that,  through  its  influence  upon  the 
national  authorities  in  their  decisions  concerning  munici- 
pal boundaries,  many  of  its  recommendations  have  since 
1835  gradually  been  brought  into  actual  operation.     From  Boundaries 
1835  to  1888  borough  boundaries  were  changed  by  acts  of  OURhs  now 


Parliament,    a   special    act   being   required    in  each  case. 
Since  1888  the  matter  of  borough  limits  has  been  dealt  orders. 

1  Keliable  statistics  of  population  may  be  found  in  the  Municipal  Tear  Book 
of  the  United  Kingdom,  published  annually. 

2  These  instructions  are  printed  in  Redlich  and  Hirst's  Local  Government  in 
England,  I.  230-231. 

8  Report  of  the  Boundary  Commissioners  (3  vols.,  London,  1837). 


228  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

with  for  the  most  part  by  the  Local  Government  Board, 
which  is  authorized  to  issue  «  provisional  orders  "  deter- 
mining all  such  questions.1  Such  orders  must,  however,  in 
certain  cases  be  confirmed  by  Parliament. 

"mu-          By  the  Municipal  Corporations    Consolidation    Act    of 
municipal  corporation  is  defined  as  "the  body 

* 


Mk-ipai  cor- 

poration." 

corporate   constituted  by  the  incorporation  of  the  inhab- 

its per-         itants  of  a    borough."     These  inhabitants  are  known    as 

burgesses,   the    contemporary    prototypes    of    the  ancient 

"  freemen  of  the  town,"  their  chief  attribute  being  the  right 

to  vote  at  municipal  elections,  —  in  other  words,  the  right 

to  be  enrolled  on  the  burgess  roll,  or  voters'  list,  of  the 

The  quaiifi-    municipality.     To  secure  enrolment  as  a  burgess  a  person 

'^burgess  *    must  satisfy  certain  qualifications,  which  may  be  briefly 

as  municipal  summarized  as  follows:   he  must  be  (T)  a  British  subject 

voter.  \    / 

either  by  birth  or  by  naturalization,  of  the  age  of  twenty- 
one  years  ;2  (2)  an  occupant,  during  the  year  last  past,  of 
some  house,  warehouse,  or  other  building  within  the  munici- 
pality upon  which  rates  are  assessed  ;  3  (3)  one  who  has 
during  the  same  period  been  resident  within  the  limits  of 
the  municipality  or  within  seven  miles  thereof,4  and  who 
(4)  has  paid  all  such  rates  as  have  become  due  upon  the 
Disquaim-  qualifying  property.  There  are  also  certain  disqualifica- 

catious.  .  .  . 

tions,  particularly  of  persons  convicted  of  serious  crimes, 
or  of  persons  who  have  within  the  year  been  in  receipt  of 

1  62-63  Victoria,  c.  14,  §  54. 

2  Men,  unmarried  women,  and  widows  are  included  ;  but  married  women  are 
not  enrolled  as  voters,  even  though  they  fulfil  the  ordinary  conditions. 

8  The  occupancy  may  be  individual,  joint,  or  several  ;  but  occupancy  of 
premises  by  a  joint-stock  company  does  not  qualify  the  stockholders,  nor  does 
occupancy  by  a  society  qualify  its  members.  No  minimum  assessment  is  fixed. 
In  order  to  qualify  as  an  occupant  of  land  upon  which  there  is  no  building,  an 
assessment  of  at  least  £10  is  required. 

4  This  has  been  construed  to  be  seven  miles  in  a  straight  line  from  the  outer 
limits  of  the  borough.  When  the  assessment  is  £10  or  more,  only  six  months' 
residence  is  required. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  229 

public  charity  or  whose  near  relatives  have  received  such 
assistance. 

An  interesting  difference  between  the  English  and  the  voting 
American  principle  of  enrolment  is  seen  in  the  fact  that, 
whereas  in  America  the  qualifications  for  voting  are  usually  liamentary 

J     and  local 

the  same  at  all  elections,  national,  state,  and  municipal,  in  elections 
England  the  lists  of  qualified  voters  are  entirely  different 
at  parliamentary  and  borough  elections.  The  parliamentary 
franchise  is  in  some  respects  the  more  comprehensive ;  for 
it  includes  all  "  lodgers  "  who  pay  an  annual  rental  of  ten 
pounds  or  more,  a  class  which  is  not  recognized  as  fulfilling 
the  condition  of  "  occupancy  "  demanded  in  the  munici- 
palities. On  the  other  hand,  the  municipal  franchise  in- 
cludes a  good  many  female  ratepayers,  a  class  which  has 
not  as  yet  been  recognized  in  the  parliamentary  lists.  Still, 
in  general  the  totals  on  the  two  lists  do  not  vary  greatly, 
although  the  borough  electorate  is  probably,  on  an  average, 
somewhat  the  larger,  for  the  number  of  women  who  vote 
in  the  boroughs  is  scarcely  offset  by  the  number  of  lodgers 
and  others  who  vote  in  parliamentary  elections.1  Exact 
comparisons  are  difficult  to  make,  however,  for  municipal 
and  parliamentary  electoral  boundaries  do  not  always  coin- 
cide. 

Although  the  franchise  requirements  in  English  boroughs  Scope  of  the 

i  -i  11  municipal 

are  on  the  whole  so  elementary  that  they  would  seem  on  8uffragein 
their  face  to  shut  out  nobody  who  has  any  real  interest  in  ^" 
the  municipality,  the  fact  remains  that  the  ratio  of  voters  states. 
to  the  total  population  is  much  smaller  in   the  English 
boroughs  than  in  the  cities  of   the  United  States,  where 
a   regime   of   manhood   suffrage   prevails.     Some  are  un- 

1  In  1898  the  London  County  Council  published  a  statement  showing  the  com- 
parative strength  of  the  local  and  parliamentary  electorates  in  some  sixty  large 
boroughs.  On  an  average  the  local  ones  were  about  twelve  per  cent  stronger 
than  the  parliamentary. 


230  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

doubtedly  kept  out  by  the  residence  requirement ;  a 
larger  quota,  perhaps,  are  disqualified  by  the  receipt  of 
aid  from  the  poor  fund ;  and  in  most  of  the  boroughs 
there  are  always  a  good  many,  especially  among  the 
poorer  element  of  the  population,  who  are  denied  enrol- 
ment on  the  voters'  list  because  they  fail  to  pay  their 
rates  on  time.  It  has  been  estimated  that,  in  the  bor- 
oughs as  a  whole,  from  twenty-five  to  forty  per  cent  of 
the  adult  male  population  is  excluded  by  some  one  or 
other  of  the  franchise  limitations.1  In  London  the 
voters'  list  contains  about  twelve  per  cent  of  the  total 
population,  in  New  York  about  sixteen  per  cent.  If 
manhood  suffrage  were  in  New  York  to  be  supplanted 
by  the  English  franchise  system,  the  electorate  in  that 
city  would  be  reduced  in  numbers  from  about  660,000 
to  about  480,000 ;  that  is,  one  voter  in  every  four  would 
be  disfranchised.2 
Thenon-vot-  It  would  not  be  fair  to  say  that  the  English  voting  re- 
quirements  serve  to  disqualify  only  those  who  would,  if 
they  had  the  suffrage,  use  it  with  the  least  intelligence 
and  with  the  least  steadfastness  against  venality.  On  the 
contrary,  considerable  numbers  of  intelligent,  reputable, 
and  well-paid  workingmen  are  excluded  because  they  live 
in  low-priced  lodgings ;  and  hundreds  or  even  thousands 
of  young  men  are  debarred  because  they  reside  with  their 
parents,  and  hence  rank  neither  as  householders  nor  as 
lodgers.8  It  must  further  be  borne  in  mind  that  in  every 
English  municipality  there  are  many  persons  legally  quali- 
fied as  voters  who  do  not  assert  their  right  to  go  on  the 

1  Professor  F.  J.  Goodnow,  in  Eeport  to  the  National  Civic  Federation  Com- 
mission on  Public  Ownership  and  Operation  (3  vols.,  New  York,  1907),  Pt.  I. 
Vol.  I.  47. 

2  Ibid.  49. 

8  See  Professor  John  B.  Commons's  report  on  "  Labor  and  Politics,"  Ibid. 
Pt.  II.  Vol.  II.  6. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  231 

list  because,  as  will  be  pointed  out  later,  such  insistence 
would  involve  some  disclosure  of  their  private  affairs. 
There  are  said  to  be  at  least  160,000  legally  qualified 
voters  in  London  whose  names  are,  for  one  reason  or 
another,  not  on  the  voters'  list.1 

As  students  of  comparative  administration  have  fre-  English  the- 
quently  pointed  out,  the  English  idea  of  the  suffrage  in  mu- 
nicipal  elections  is  that  votes  should  in  general  represent 
units  of  property  rather  than  individuals.  Hence,  mere 
residence  within  the  municipal  limits  does  not  of  itself 
give  an  adult  citizen  any  franchise  rights,  nor  does  resi- 
dence outside  the  limits  preclude  him  from  qualifying  as 
a  voter.  With  the  important  exception  of  corporate  hold- 
ings, practically  every  unit  of  rateable  property  —  that  is  to 
say,  every  unit  of  property  which  is  assessed  for  local  taxes 
—  is  entitled  to  be  represented  ;  and,  as  a  rule,  the  person 
who  is  recognized  as  having  the  right  to  represent  it  is 
the  one  who  pays  the  taxes  assessed  upon  it.  This  person 
is,  in  most  cases,  the  occupier.  To  be  recognized  as  an 
occupier,  moreover,  one  need  not  reside  on  the  premises  ; 
for  a  business  man  who  leases  an  office,  a  warehouse,  or  a 
store  thereby  becomes  its  occupant,  and  as  such  is  quali- 
fied to  vote  although  he  may  live  outside  the  municipal 
limits.  In  recent  years,  however,  the  practice  of  admit- 
ting to  voting  rights  in  municipal  elections  persons  who 
are  virtually  lodgers  has  tended  greatly  to  confuse  mat- 
ters. Till  within  two  years  persons  occupying  rooms,  or 
even  suites  of  rooms,  in  a  house  in  which  their  landlord 
lived  were  deemed  "  lodgers,"  and  hence  were  denied  the 
right  to  be  enrolled  as  municipal  voters  ;  but  by  a  decision 
rendered  in  1906  such  persons  may  now  in  certain  cases  be 
ranked  as  "  occupants,"  and  so  are  entitled  to  the  borough 


ibid.  5. 


232 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


The  voters' 
list;  how 
compiled. 


franchise.1  A  way  has  thus  been  opened  for  a  large  in- 
crease in  the  municipal  electorate,  and  in  many  boroughs 
this  expansion  has  already  taken  place. 

The  work  of  compiling  the  voters'  list  is  in  the  hands 
of  certain  officials  known  as  overseers  of  the  poor,  whose 
chief  duty,  however,  is  that  of  preparing  the  assessment 
rolls  which  form  the  basis  for  levying  the  annual  "  poor 
rate."  Each  year  these  overseers  are  instructed  by  the 
town  clerk  to  prepare  a  preliminary  list  of  municipal  voters  ; 
and  this  they  proceed  to  do  by  copying  from  their  assess- 
ment rolls  the  names  of  all  qualified  persons  entered 
thereon,  a  table  which  includes  all  occupants  who  pay 
rates  and  who  otherwise  satisfy  the  legal  requirements. 
When  rates  are  paid  not  by  the  occupant  but  by  the  owner, 
the  latter  is  called  upon  to  send  in  the  name  of  his  tenant 
that  it  may  be  duly  enrolled.2  This,  unfortunately,  he 
does  not  always  do  ;  indeed,  the  returns  transmitted  by 
owners  are  said  to  be  so  notoriously  inaccurate  as  to 
justify  the  charge,  sometimes  made,  that  English  landlords 
make  a  point  of  omitting  the  names  of  those  of  their 
tenants  who  happen  to  be  politically  opposed  to  them. 
Nevertheless,  an  occupant  whose  name  is  not  returned  to 
the  overseers  by  the  owner  may  obtain  a  place  on  the  list 
by  application  to  the  revising  authorities,  if  he  chooses  to 
make  such  request,  or  to  have  it  made  for  him  by  one  of 
his  party  managers.  The  lodgers,  too,  are  not  listed  from 
the  assessment  rolls,  but  must  present  applications  for  enrol- 


1  In  the  case  of  Kent  vs.  Fittall  (1906)  it  was  ruled  that,  if  a  person  has  inde- 
pendent control  over  his  room  or  rooms,  —  that  is  to  say,  is  in  effect  as  indepen- 
dent as  he  would  be  in  a  self-contained  apartment,  —  he  is  not  to  be  ranked  as  a 
"  lodger"  but  as  an  "  occupant."    For  obvious  reasons  this  ruling  is  popularly 
known  in  England  as  "  the  latch-key  decision." 

2  The  practice  of  arranging  to  have  the  landlord  pay  the  rates  has  become 
much  more  common  in  recent  years,  particularly  in  the  case  of  workingmen's 
tenements. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  233 

merit.  In  other  words,  the  occupant  who  is  assessed  for 
local  taxes  is  put  on  the  voters'  list  each  year  without  any 
action  on  his  own  part,  whereas  the  non-taxpaying  occupant 
and  the  lodger  have  to  look  after  their  own  interests. 

When    the  overseers    have  prepared    their   preliminary  Revising  the 

list 

list,  they  transmit  it  to  the  town  clerk,  who  posts  it,  receives 
any  objections  which  may  be  made  as  to  improper  inclusions 
or  exclusions,  and  then,  in  September  of  each  year,  hands 
it,  together  with  such  objections  as  may  have  been  filed 
with  him,  to  an  officer  known  as  the  revising  barrister.1 
Such  an  official,  who  must  be  a  barrister  of  at  least  seven  The  revising 
years'  standing,  is  chosen  for  each  of  the  ninety-seven  barn 
revising  districts  into  which  the  country  is  divided,  his 
appointment  lying  with  the  senior  judge  of  assize  for  the 
county  within  which  the  district  is  situated.  These  Their  func- 
re vising  barristers  go  about  to  the  boroughs  within  their  * 
districts,  and  during  the  months  of  September  and  October 
hold  what  are  termed  "courts  of  revision,"  due  notice  be- 
ing given  in  each  municipality  of  the  place  and  date  at 
which  such  a  court  is  to  be  held.  At  this  court,  or  "  hear- 
ing," all  claims  regarding  the  addition  or  deleting  of  names 
are  heard  and  determined,  the  revising  barrister  having 
power  to  take  swrorn  testimony  as  to  the  facts  whenever 
he  deems  such  action  desirable.  Claims  are,  as  a  rule, 
brought  forward  by  agents  representing  the  political 
parties  concerned,  such  counsel  not  only  setting  forth  the 
facts  upon  which  they  base  their  claims,  but  also  offering 
briefs  and  arguments  in  support  of  their  contentions  when 
they  think  best.  On  questions  of  fact  the  decision  of  the  Appeals 

_       .     ..  ..  .  ,  .   ,     against  their 

revising  barrister  is  final ;  but  a  ruling  on  any  point  which  decisions, 
involves  the  interpretation  of  the  law  may  be  made  the 
basis  of  an  appeal  to  the  court  of  King's  Bench.     In  the 

1  For  all  details  concerning  the  compilation  of  municipal  voters'  lists,  see 
Rogers  on  Elections  (17th  ed.,  by  S.  H.  Day,  3  vols.,  London,  1894),  III.  31-81. 


234  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

court  of  the  revising  barrister  the  usual  rules  of  evidence 
are  observed ;  but  if  a  name  has  been  put  on  the  list  by 
the  overseers  the  presumption  is  in  favor  of  leaving  it  there. 
If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  addition  of  a  name  is  desired, 
the  burden  of  proof  rests  on  the  applicant  for  enrolment. 
When  the  list  has  passed  the  revising  barrister,  it  is  returned 
to  the  town  clerk,  who  has  it  put  into  printed  form  and 
made  ready  for  the  election.  No  further  change  may  be 
made  except  by  an  order  of  the  court  of  King's  Bench. 
Meritsofthe  The  English  system  of  compiling  and  revising  the  voters' 
list  has,  on  the  whole,  been  found  highly  satisfactory.  For 
the  great  majority  of  municipal  voters  it  obviates  the  need 
of  any  personal  action  in  order  to  be  assured  of  a  place  on 
the  roll,  probably  four-fifths  of  the  qualified  voters  having 
their  names  regularly  carried  on  the  lists  as  a  matter  of 
.  course.  It  is  only  the  small  householders  and  the  lodgers 
who  need  look  out  for  themselves.  Not  only  must  these 
make  application  each  year,  but,  if  their  claims  happen  to 
be  challenged  before  the  revising  barrister,  they  frequently 
have  to  disclose  under  oath  the  amounts  of  annual  rental 
paid  by  them,  and  other  matters  which  some  of  them  seem 
to  regard  as  their  private  affairs.  That  many  of  this  class, 
therefore,  do  not,  whether  through  neglect  or  through  pos- 
itive disinclination,  apply  for  places  on  the  list  may  be 
accounted  one  of  the  evil  results  of  the  system.  At  the 
same  time,  the  English  arrangement  greatly  reduces  the 
liability  of  danger  from  sinister  practices  like  "coloniza- 
tion" or  the  padding  of  the  lists  with  names  of  persons  who 
have  no  legal  title  to  be  enrolled.  Every  name  must  be 
related  to  a  specific  occupancy,  and  the  essential  facts  must 
be  established  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  revising  officer. 
Furthermore,  the  revising  barristers  have  almost  invariably 
been  men  of  high  standing,  who,  having  as  a  rule  no 
local  party  interests  to  serve,  have  performed  their  functions 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  235 

in  a  judicial  and  impartial  spirit.  Most  of  them  are  con- 
tinued in  office  for  long  terms  of  years,  and  for  their 
short  periods  of  work  receive  very  substantial  remunera- 
tion.1 Their  rulings  on  points  of  law  are  sometimes  ques- 
tioned, and  are  occasionally  reversed  by  the  court  of  King's 
Bench ;  but  that  they  have  as  a  class  secured  an  approach 
to  absolute  fairness  in  the  compilation  and  revision  of  the 
lists  is  scarcely  to  be  questioned. 

In  October  of  each  year  the  revision  of  the  municipal  Municipal 
voters'  list  is  finished,  and  in  November  the  voters  are  electlons- 
called  to  the  polls.  The  sole  governing  organ  of  the 
borough  is  a  borough  council,  which  is  made  up  of  a 
mayor,  a  number  of  aldermen,  and  a  number  of  councillors. 
Of  these  members  only  the  councillors  are  elected  by  the 
voters,  the  mayor  and  aldermen  being  chosen  by  the 
council.  For  the  election  of  councillors  the  borough  may 
be  divided  into  wards  and  a  certain  number  of  councilmen 
allotted  to  each  ;  or  the  election  may  be  by  general  ticket 
for  the  whole  municipality.  Division  into  wards  may  be  Usually  held 
effected  by  the  borough  authorities  themselves,  provided  7* 
the  consent  of  the  Local  Government  Board  be  obtained,  — 
a  precaution  which  aims  to  prevent  any  local  gerryman- 
dering. Most  of  the  larger  boroughs  are  so  divided,2  but 
the  smaller  ones  commonly  remain  undistricted.  In  either 
case  the  councillors  are  chosen  for  a  three-year  term,  and 
one-third  of  them  retire  annually  ;  hence  an  election  must 
ordinarily  be  held  every  year.  In  the  large  boroughs  three 
councilmen  are  usually  allotted  to  each  ward  or  district, 
one  being  elected  each  November. 

1  The  revising  barrister's  fee  is  250  guineas  ($1275),  for  work  which  seldom 
takes  more  than  two  or  three  weeks.    Further  information  concerning  the  func- 
tions of  these  officials  may  be  found  in  the  Encyclopaedia  of  Local  Government 
Law. 

2  Liverpool  is  divided  into  thirty-five  wards,  Manchester  into  thirty,  Birming- 
ham into  eighteen,  and  Leicester  into  sixteen. 


236  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

Eligibility  In  general  terms  it  is  true  that  any  voter  may  be 
elected  to  the  council ;  but,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  some  voters 
are  not  eligible  and  some  persons  are  eligible  who  are  not 
voters.  Clergymen,  for  instance,  are  permitted  to  vote 
but  not  to  stand  for  election  except  in  the  London  boroughs. 
Women  voters  were  until  1907  also  ineligible,  but  they 
may  now  be  chosen ;  indeed,  it  is  legally  possible  that 
a  woman  may  be  selected  to  till  the  post  of  mayor  in 
any  English  borough.1  Ineligibility  further  attaches  to 
any  person  who  holds  a  post  of  profit  that  lies  within  the 
gift  of  the  council,  and  also  to  any  one  who  has  either 
directly  or  indirectly  a  share  or  interest  in  any  contract 
made  with  the  borough  authorities.  This  last  rule  is  not, 
however,  applied  to  disqualify  shareholders  in  a  joint-stock 
corporation  which  obtains  a  municipal  contract ;  nor  does 
it  render  ineligible  the  publisher  of  a  newspaper  which 
prints  municipal  advertisements,  or  persons  who  covenant 
with  the  municipal  council  for  the  sale  or  lease  of  land  or 
for  the  loan  of  money.2 

Non-resident  Apart  from  the  provision  permitting  the  election  of 
women  to  the  council,  perhaps  the  most  interesting  of  the 
English  regulations  relating  to  eligibility  is  that  which 
allows  councillors  to  be  chosen  from  outside  the  ranks  of 
voters.  According  to  this  regulation,  persons  owning  prop- 
erty in  the  municipality,  or  paying  rates  above  a  certain 
minimum,  may  be  elected  to  the  council  if  they  live  within 
fifteen  miles  of  the  borough,  although  they  may  not  vote 
if  their  residence  happens  to  lie  beyond  the  seven-mile 
limit.  This  somewhat  anomalous  situation  is  apparently 
an  outgrowth  of  the  provision  that  a  ratepayer  may  reside 

1  7  Edward  VII.  c.  33.    In  at  least  one  case  a  woman  has  been  so  selected. 

2  Municipal  Corporations  Consolidation  Act,  §§  11-12.     See  also  Eogers  on 
Elections,  III.  1-30  ;  and  Redlich  and  Hirst,  Local  Government  in  England,  I. 
249-252. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  237 

anywhere  within  seven  miles  of  the  outer  limits  of  the 
city  and  still  be  a  voter,  —  a  principle  that  enables  large 
numbers  of  business  men  to  retain  their  franchises  in 
the  municipalities  where  their  chief  interests  lie,  instead 
of  being  enrolled,  as  in  the  United  States  they  would  be, 
on  the  lists  of  the  suburban  towns  in  which  they  happen 
to  live  but  in  the  affairs  of  which  they  may  have  compar- 
atively little  real  interest.  As  a  logical  outcome  of  this 
system,  there  are  in  the  larger  English  cities  like  Birming- 
ham, Liverpool,  and  Manchester  some  wards  in  which  the 
majority  of  the  voters  are  persons  who  do  not  live  in  the 
wards  at  all,  a  circumstance  which  has,  as  will  be  seen 
later,  led  to  the  selection  of  non-resident  councillors.  All  Candidates 
this  seems  natural  enough ;  but  in  permitting  candidacy  ^nvotera! 
to  persons  who  are  not  only  non-residents  but  non-voters 
the  English  system  goes  a  decided  step  farther,  and  gives 
to  the  electorate  an  unusually  broad  range  of  choice.1  A 
circle  extending  fifteen  miles  round  the  outer  limits  of  any 
large  English  city  covers  over  one  hundred  square  miles  of 
territory,  and  hence  must  include  almost  every  one  whose 
interest  in  the  affairs  of  the  borough  is  of  any  importance. 
The  English  municipal  system  makes  no  provision  for 
the  holding  of  any  primary  or  other  gathering  of  partisans 
on  the  eve  of  an  election ;  indeed,  party  organizations  as 
such  are  not  recognized  by  law  as  having  any  role  in  the 
making  of  municipal  nominations.  A  candidate  for  elec-  Nomination 
tion  to  the  council  is  in  all  cases  brought  forward  by  means  dates!  * 
of  a  simple  nomination  paper.  This  document,  which 
must  be  deposited  with  the  town  clerk  as  least  seven  days 
before  the  polling,  must  give  the  candidate's  full  name, 
place  of  residence,  and  occupation,  and  must  bear  the  names 
of  at  least  ten  qualified  voters  of  the  borough  or  ward 

1  The  influence  of  these  provisions  upon  the  character  of  the  councils  in  Eng- 
lish boroughs  is  discussed  below,  pp.  248-249. 


238 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


Mayor  de- 
termines 
validity  of 
nomination 
papers. 


No  multi- 
plication of 
candidates. 


within  which  the  nominee  seeks  election.  A  voter  may 
sign  as  many  nomination  papers  as  there  are  posts  to  be 
filled,  and  no  more.  If  he  should  sign  more,  his  signature 
becomes  ineffective  on  those  which  are  presented  latest  to 
the  town  clerk. 

When  the  time  for  receiving  nomination  papers  has  ex- 
pired, the  mayor  is  called  upon  by  the  clerk  to  pass  upon 
the  validity  of  such  as  have  been  deposited ;  and  he  must 
do  this  within  three  days.  If  he  decides  in  favor  of  a  paper, 
there  is  no  appeal  from  his  judgment ;  but  if,  on  the  other 
hand,  he  declares  against  any,  an  appeal  may  be  taken  to 
the  courts.  In  either  case  the  list  of  valid  nominations  is 
duly  posted,  and  the  election  proceeds.  The  roll  as  an- 
nounced contains  no  reference  whatever  to  the  political 
affiliations  of  any  candidate.1 

One  might  reasonably  suppose  that  the  facility  of  nomi- 
nation would  serve  to  bring  a  plethora  of  candidates  into 
the  field.  On  the  contrary,  however,  the  number  of  names 
eventually  printed  on  the  ballot  is  almost  invariably  small, 
rarely  exceeding  two  or  three.  A  dozen  nomination  papers 
may  be  handed  in ;  but  the  chances  are  that  before  the 
ballots  are  sent  to  the  printer  nearly  all  the  nominees  will 
go  to  the  town  clerk  and  insist  that  their  names  shall  be 
withdrawn.  Municipal  experience  in  England  certainly 
does  not  seem  to  show  that  the  plan  of  nomination  by 
individual  voters  multiplies  candidates  ;  for  the  number  of 
men  who  aspire  to  public  office  under  this  system  is  propor- 
tionately much  smaller  than  in  the  cities  of  the  United 
States,  where  it  is  far  more  difficult  to  get  one's  name  upon 
the  ballot.  To  a  busy  man,  unless  he  be  possessed  of  public 


1  The  regulations  relating  to  municipal  nominations  are  set  forth  in  the  Mu- 
nicipal Corporations  Act  of  1882,  §§  55-56,  and  the  accompanying  schedules. 
A  summary  on  their  interpretation  by  the  courts  may  be  found  in  Rogers  on 
Elections,  III.  88-96. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  239 

spirit,  the  post  of  councillor  offers  so  little  attraction 
that  he  is  apt  to  decline  the  proffered  honor  unless 
some  influence  is  brought  to  bear  upon  him  to  secure  his 
acceptance  of  a  nomination.  In  fact,  one  might  almost 
say  that  the  first  qualification  for  membership  in  the 
council  of  an  English  borough  is  a  strong  reluctance  to 
enter  it. 

The  duty  of  preparing  the  announcements,  fitting  up  the 
polling-booths,  having  the  ballots  printed,  and  making  pro- 
vision for  all  the  incidents  of  an  election  rests  upon  the 
mayor,  who  thus  becomes  the  "  returning  officer "  of  the 
municipality.  Though  responsible  for  everything,  he  does 
not,  however,  have  to  attend  to  all  the  details ;  for  the 
actual  work  of  preparation  is  usually  performed  by  the 
town  clerk  or,  in  the  larger  boroughs,  by  the  latter's  as- 
sistant. If  the  number  of  candidates  in  nomination  does  Unopposed 
not  exceed  the  number  of  posts  to  be  filled,  the  mayor 
declares  such  nominees  to  have  been  elected  unopposed, 
and  hence  has  to  make  no  provisions  at  all  for  polling. 
Elections  by  acclamation  are  very  common  in  English 
boroughs  ;  indeed,  it  is  rather  unusual  for  a  contest  to  occur 
in  every  ward  of  a  large  borough  at  one  time,  and  it  some- 
times happens  that  candidates  are  returned  by  acclamation 
in  all  the  wards.1 

When  a  polling  is  necessary,  the  mayor,  in  addition  to  Polling  pro- 
providing  the  ballots  and   other  necessary   papers,   must 
arrange  for  polling-places,  and  must  see  that  at  least  four 
days    before  the  election  the    various  locations  are   duly 

1  "In  one  hundred  and  three  boroughs  and  urban  districts,  large  and  small, 
taken  at  random  at  the  elections  of  1899,  decidedly  less  than  half  the  seats  in  the 
aggregate  were  contested,  while  in  thirteen  of  these  places  there  was  not  a  single 
contest.  Nor  does  there  appear  to  be  any  marked  difference  in  this  respect 
between  large  and  small  towns,  or  between  places  where  the  nomination  is  made 
on  party  lines  and  those  where  it  is  not."  —  LOWELL,  The  Government  of  Eng- 
land, II.  164-165. 


240  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

published  for  the  information  of  voters.1  No  official 
notice  of  the  place  and  hour  of  polling  is  sent  to  the 
voters,  as  in  French  and  German  cities  ;  such  intimation, 
if  made  at  all,  must  come  from  the  candidates  or  their 
agents.  The  polling  takes  place  in  some  public  building 
if  there  happens  to  be  one  conveniently  located  for  the 
purpose  ;  otherwise  rooms  in  private  buildings  are  hired 
for  the  day  and  paid  for  out  of  the  municipal  funds.  In 
no  case  may  a  polling-place  be  located  in  any  building 
which  is  used  for  the  sale  of  intoxicants. 

Poll  officials.  When  a  borough  is  divided  into  wards,  there  must  be  at 
least  one  polling-place  for  each  ward  ;  and  each  poll  must 
be  in  charge  of  an  alderman  designated  for  the  purpose  by 
the  council  and  constituting,  for  the  polling-day,  a  "  deputy 
returning  officer."  If  there  are  more  polling-places  than 
there  are  aldermen,  they  may  be  put  in  care  of  councillors ; 
but  no  councillor  may  preside  over  a  poll  in  his  own  district. 
The  poll-clerks  and  other  clerical  officials  connected  with 
the  poll  are  appointed  by  the  council.  All  expenses  except 
the  cost  of  printing  the  ballots  are  paid  by  the  municipality  ; 
the  ballots  are  printed  at  the  expense  of  the  candidates. 

HOW  votes  When  a  voter  enters  the  polling-booth  on  election  day 
he  is  provided  with  an  official  ballot  paper,  which  he  takes 
into  the  compartment  provided  for  marking  the  ballots. 
His  name  is  thereupon  checked  off  the  list.  Before  receiv- 
ing the  ballot,  however,  he  may  be  challenged  by  any  of 
the  scrutineers,  or  polling-agents,  present  in  the  room ;  for 
every  candidate  is  entitled  to  be  represented  at  each  of  the 
polls  by  two  of  these  agents,  who,  like  the  other  persons 
in  the  polling-booths,  are  sworn  to  secrecy.  Not  that 
these  scrutineers  may  question  the  right  of  a  voter  to  his 

1  The  polling  procedure  in  English  borough  elections  is  regulated  by  the  Mu- 
nicipal Corporations  Act  of  1882,  §  58,  which  adopted,  with  some  modifications, 
the  provisions  of  the  Ballot  Act  of  1872  (35-36  Victoria,  c.  33) .  At  present  the 
procedure  hi  borough  and  parliamentary  elections  is  substantially  the  same. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  241 

place  on  the  list.  All  they  can  do  is  to  compel  him  to 
establish  his  identity,  and  to  take  oath  that  he  has  not 
already  voted  elsewhere  in  the  same  election.  Under  no 
circumstances  may  a  ballot  be  given  to  any  one  whose 
name  is  not  on  the  voters'  list ;  there  is  in  England  no 
provision  for  the  method  commonly  known  in  American 
elections  as  "  swearing  in  "  votes. 

The  ballot  is  printed  on  plain  white  paper  and  contains  The  ballot, 
simply  the  name,  residence,  and  occupation  of  each  candi- 
date ;  no  reference  to  his  party  allegiance  is  permitted. 
Ordinarily  there  are  only  two  or  three  names  on  the  ballot, 
especially  in  the  larger  boroughs,  where  the  councilmen 
are  elected  by  wards ;  and  these  names  are  printed  in  al- 
phabetical order,  so  that  no  advantage  is  gained  through 
priority  in  the  filing  of  nomination  papers.  After  each  name 
is  a  blank  space,  in  which  the  voter  may  indicate  his  choice 
by  making  a  cross.  He  must  thus  specifically  designate 
each  candidate  for  whom  he  desires  his  vote  to  be  re- 
corded, for  there  is  no  possibility  of  voting  a  whole  "  slate," 
or  "  ticket,"  by  marking  a  single  cross  at  the  head  of  a 
column.  Indeed,  one  of  the  most  important  differences 
between  the  English  and  the  American  municipal  ballot  is 
to  be  found  in  the  fact  that  the  former  throws  the  voter 
wholly  upon  his  personal  knowledge  of  the  individual  can- 
didates, and  in  the  absence  of  such  knowledge  affords  him 
no  designations  or  methods  of  grouping  whereby  he  may 
be  guided  to  a  choice.  If  a  voter  declare  himself  to  be, 
from  blindness  or  other  physical  disability,  unable  to  read, 
his  ballots  may  be  marked  for  him,  in  accordance  with  his 
oral  instructions,  by  the  officer  in  charge  of  the  poll.1 

1  An  interesting  testimony  to  the  regard  which  the  framers  of  the  Ballot  Act 
had  for  religious  scruples  is  afforded  by  the  provision  that,  if  an  election  is  held 
on  a  Saturday,  orthodox  Hebrews  who  object,  on  religious  grounds,  to  voting  in 
the  ordinary  way  may  on  request  have  their  ballots  marked  for  them  by  the 
presiding  officer  of  the  poll. 


242 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


Duration  of 
polling. 


Recounts. 


Influence  of 
political  par- 
ties in  mu- 
nicipal elec- 
tions. 


Having  prepared  his  ballot,  the  voter  deposits  it  in  the 
ballot-box,  the  whole  process  being  thus  strictly  secret  ex- 
cept in  the  case  of  one  who  cannot  mark  his  own  paper. 

The  polling  lasts  a  single  day,  and  the  polls  must  ordi- 
narily be  kept  open  from  eight  in  the  morning  till  eight 
in  the  evening ; l  but  if  all  the  registered  votes  have  been 
polled  before  eight  o'clock,  or  if  the  space  of  an  hour  shall 
have  passed  without  a  single  vote's  being  cast,  the  poll 
may  be  closed  earlier.  At  the  conclusion  of  the  voting 
the  ballots  are  taken  from  the  box  and  'counted  by  the 
officer  in  charge,  assisted  by  the  polling-agents.  Any 
papers  which  may  be  objected  to  by  the  latter  are  put 
into  an  envelope  to  be  dealt  with  later,  being  counted  or 
not  meantime,  as  the  officer  in  charge  may  decide.  The 
announcement  of  the  result  is  duly  certified  to  the  mayor, 
to  whom  the  boxes  and  ballots  are  likewise  returned  un- 
der seal.  A  recount  may  be  had  only  by  application  to 
the  courts,  but  such  requests  are  granted  very  readily. 
In  all  cases  a  plurality  of  votes  is  sufficient  to  elect  a 
candidate.  When  two  persons  receive  the  same  number 
the  decision  rests,  in  a  ward  contest,  with  the  alderman 
in  charge,  but  in  an  election  that  covers  the  borough  as 
a  whole,  with  the  mayor. 

To  speak  in  any  general  terms  of  the  role  played  by 
political  parties  in  English  municipal  elections  is  of  ne- 
cessity to  deal  unsatisfactorily  with  an  interesting  phase 
of  English  municipal  life ;  for  the  subject  is  not  one  which 
may  be  dealt  with  properly  in  a  few  paragraphs.2  Party 

1  This  requirement  is  fixed  by  the  Election  Act  of  1885  (48  Victoria,  c.  10). 
Prior  to  this  date  the  polling  continued  from  nine  till  four  only. 

2  For  further  and  more  concrete  information  on  this  topic,  reference  may  be 
made  to  J.  S.  Lloyd's  Municipal  Elections  and  How  to  Fight  them  (London, 
1906)  ;  to  the  interesting  chapter  on  "  Municipal  Electioneering  and  Municipal 
Politics"  in  Redlich  and  Hirst's  Local  Government  in  England,  I.  264-279; 
to  the  comprehensive  discussion  of  the  relations  of  "  Labor  and  Politics  "  in 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  243 

machinery,  party  activities,  and  party  methods  vary  so 
much  in  different  municipalities,  and  even  in  the  same 
borough  at  different  times,  that  broad  generalizations  in 
this  field  are  liable  to  be  misleading.  Roughly  speaking, 
however,  one  may  say  that  in  the  larger  boroughs  the 
local  elections  are  fought  out,  in  the  great  majority  of 
cases,  between  candidates  who  represent  the  two  leading 
political  parties.  In  most  cities  this  identity  of  national 
and  local  party  lines  is  not  openly  avowed,  —  that  it 
exists  at  all,  indeed,  would  be  denied  by  some  represen- 
tative citizens ;  but  as  a  matter  of  fact  there  is  scarcely  a 
large  city  in  England,  with  the  exception  of  London,  in 
which  the  municipal  campaigns  are  not  conducted  along 
straight  party  lines,  and  almost  always  with  some  as- 
sistance from  the  national  party  organizations.  It  is  true, 
nevertheless,  that  candidates  who  call  themselves  Conser- 
vatives sometimes  conduct  their  municipal  campaigns  as 
if  they  were  rampant  Radicals,  and  that  some  of  those 
who  profess  to  be  Liberals  may  stand  for  everything  that 
is  reactionary. 

In  some  few  cases  these  parties  are  local ;  that  is  to  say,  identity  of 
they  are  not  directly  connected  with  the  great  national  andiocal 
parties.     In  London,  for  example,  the  voters  have  grouped  parties, 
themselves   into   two   factions,   known   as   the   Moderates 
(or  Reformers)  and  the  Progressives ;  but,  although  the 
former  group   seems  to  be  recruited   mainly  from   those 
who  are  Conservatives  in  national  politics,  and  the  latter 
mainly  from  those  who  are  Liberals,1  the  two  London  par- 
ties have  no  direct  connection  with  the  two  national  organi- 

English  cities,  by  Professor  J.  B.  Commons  and  Mr.  J.  W.  Sullivan,  in  the 
Report  to  the  National  Civic  Federation  Commission  on  Public  Ownership  and 
Operation,  Pt.  II.  Vol.  II.  1-112 ;  and  to  the  evidence  brought  together  in  the 
Report  of  the  Royal  Commission  on  the  Amalgamation  of  London  (London, 
1894). 

1  See  below,  pp.  346-347. 


244  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

zations.  They  are  local  factions,  with  programmes  based 
on  local  issues.  In  many  of  the  smaller  boroughs,  further- 
more, party  politics  play  little  or  no  part  at  all  in  the  local 
election  campaigns,  the  contest  for  office  being  determined 
wholly  by  the  relative  personal  strength  of  the  candidates. 
On  the  whole,  however,  the  electorates  in  the  larger  mu- 
nicipalities divide  themselves  along  pretty  nearly  the 
same  lines  in  local  elections  as  in  parliamentary  ones. 
This  identity  Just  as  in  a  city  of  the  United  States  party  lines  may  at 
lacking.  times  be  broken  down  and  some  prominent  local  issue 
thrust  to  the  front,  so  it  often  happens  that  in  a  large 
English  borough  there  may  at  some  election  be  an  un- 
usual display  of  independence  on  the  part  of  the  voters, 
resulting  for  the  time  being  in  an  entirely  new  alignment 
of  the  electorate.  Englishmen,  like  Americans,  readily 
concede  that  party  politics  are  altogether  out  of  place  in 
municipal  affairs ;  but  as  a  matter  of  fact  the  voter  who 
calls  himself  a  Conservative  in  parliamentary  campaigns 
is,  in  probably  nine  cases  out  of  ten,  true  to  his  party 
allegiance  in  municipal  contests.  It  is  of  course  substan- 
tially the  same  with  adherents  of  the  Liberal  party, 
and  it  seems  to  be  equally  true  of  the  Labor  element, 
which  has  recently  risen  into  importance  as  a  factor  in 
national  politics.  This  adherence  to  party  principles  in 
municipal  elections  may  be  attributed  mainly  to  the 
fact  that  in  most  of  the  boroughs  the  only  permanent  and 
effective  electoral  organizations  are  the  local  branches  of 
the  national  party  machine.1 

It  is  true  that  at  English  local  elections  the  party  whip 
is  not  so  readily  applied,  and  when  applied  is  perhaps  not 
so  readily  obeyed,  as  in  the  United  States ;  for  in  England 
political  leaders  do  not,  as  they  do  in  America,  regard  a 

1  Compare  the  discussion  of  this  topic  in  Professor  Lowell's  Government  of 
England,  II.  150-163,  231-232. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  245 

local  defeat  as  a  blow  at  the  national  party  interests.  If  Municipal 
the  party  nominee  be  lacking  in  personal  strength,  he  can-  ganiLthm 
not,  as  in  the  United  States,  count  with  reasonable  certainty  in  Ensland 

J     and  in  the 

upon  party  loyalty  to  carry  him  through ;  on  the  other  United 
hand,  a  strong  candidate  readily  appeals  for  support  out- 
side the  ranks  of  his  own  party.  In  England  the  leeway  is 
distinctly  greater  than  in  the  United  States.  At  the 
same  time,  it  would  be  entirely  misleading  to  assert  that 
national  and  municipal  party  lines  are  not  identified,  or 
even  to  suggest  that  this  coincidence  is  not  as  distinctive 
a  feature  of  English  municipal  politics  as  it  is  of  Ameri- 
can. The  candidates  for  election  to  the  English  borough 
councils,  taken  as  a  whole,  count  upon  their  local  party 
associations  to  elect  them,  or  at  least  to  muster  the  major 
part  of  the  votes  needed  for  their  election.  The  candidate 
who  has  the  backing  of  neither  association  can  reasonably 
look  for  success  only  when  the  local  situation  is  for  the 
time  being  abnormal.1 

It  sometimes  happens,  to  be  sure,  that  those  who  Non-parti- 
are  in  all  respects  party  candidates  carefully  avoid  the  zations 
partisan  label,  and  appeal  to  the  electors  as  non-partisan 
aspirants.  In  many  of  the  boroughs  there  are  electoral 
organizations,  usually  known  as  Ratepayers'  Associations 
or  Citizens'  Unions,  which  profess  to  contain  members 
drawn  from  both  political  parties  and  to  eschew  partisan- 
ship in  their  attitude  toward  all  municipal  affairs.  These 
associations  have  their  own  definite  local  programmes,  and 
frequently  stand  sponsor  for  candidates  either  independently 
or  in  cooperation  with  other  organizations ;  or  they  some- 
times throw  their  weight  to  the  side  of  those  party  can- 

1  "  The  man  who  wins  a  victory  under  such  conditions  deserves  all  the  ap- 
plause —  and  every  vote  —  he  gets.  There  are  exceptions,  but  usually  the  only 
position  open  to  the  independent  candidate  is  a  place  at  the  bottom  of  the  poll." 
—  J.  S.  LLOYD,  Municipal  Elections  and  How  to  Fight  them,  34. 


246 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


Local  party 
organiza- 
tions. 


Their  influ-  didates  whose  election  is  thought  to  be  desirable.1  Oc- 
casionally candidates  who  are  backed  by  such  organizations 
succeed  in  the  face  of  opposition  from  both  political  par- 
ties ;  but  such  success  is  apt  to  be  exceptional,  and  is  at 
best  spasmodic.  Casual  spurts  of  non-partisanship  are 
perhaps  more  frequent  in  English  boroughs  than  in  Ameri- 
can cities ;  but  they  are  probably  no  more  eifectual  in 
diminishing  permanently  the  r6le  which  party  politics  play 
in  the  affairs  of  the  municipality. 

Local  party  organizations  are,  throughout  England,  cast 
pretty  much  in  the  same  mould.  There  are  some  variations 
in  different  municipalities,  it  is  true ;  but  these  divergences 
are  not  of  much  consequence.  As  all  the  larger  boroughs 
are  divided  into  wards,  the  ward  serves  as  the  unit  of 
political  organization.  Each  ward  of  the  borough  has  its 
ward  associations,  which  comprise  within  their  membership 
any  partisans  who  wish  to  join.  Sometimes  there  is  a 
nominal  membership  fee  of  a  shilling  or  two ;  more  often 
there  is  none  at  all.  The  Liberal  association  of  the  ward, 
for  instance,  is  made  up  of  those  who  profess  adherence  to 
the  Liberal  party  and  consequently  have  their  names  en- 
rolled on  the  party  register.  On  the  eve  of  an  election 
campaign,  each  association,  which  in  no  respect  differs 
widely  from  the  American  ward  caucus,  meets  to  elect  a 
ward  committee,  and  by  this  committee  the  bulk  of  the 
actual  work  of  campaigning  is  performed.  For  the  borough 
as  a  whole  each  party  ordinarily  has  its  central  com- 
mittee, which  is  usually  made  up  of  delegates  from  the 
various  ward  committees.  This  central  committee  has 
its  chairman,  its  secretary,  and  its  treasurer,  and  some- 
times maintains  permanent  headquarters  during  the 

1  In  the  Year  Book  of  the  Glasgow  Citizens'  Union  for  1906  may  be  found 
a  full  account  of  the  programme  and  activities  by  one  of  the  best  known  among 
these  organizations. 


How  con- 
structed. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  247 

campaign.  It  is  the  custodian  of  the  campaign  fund, 
and  is  entrusted  with  the  work  of  coordinating  the  efforts 
made  to  secure  the  election  of  party  candidates  in  the 
various  wards.  In  national  election  contests  these  local  Relation  of 
committees  are  in  close  touch  with  the  national  bodies  Rational 
that  direct  party  interests  throughout  England  as  a  whole,  p*5ty  ma' 
and  this  fact  frequently  gives  the  national  organizations 
opportunity  to  exert  direct  influence  upon  the  local  parlia- 
mentary contest.1  In  the  municipal  campaigns,  however, 
the  national  bodies  almost  never  interfere  at  all.  Those  in  England 
who  are  familiar  with  the  mechanism  and  the  activities  of  united 
party  organizations  in  the  United  States  need  not  be  re-  State8- 
minded  of  the  frequent  interference  in  purely  local  election 
campaigns  which  characterizes  the  work  of  the  state  party 
machines.  This  intrusion  is,  of  course,  dictated  by  a  feel- 
ing that  the  interests  of  the  party  in  state  and  city  are 
identical,  and  that  party  success  or  defeat  in  the  munici- 
palities has  a  direct  influence  upon  the  interests  of  the 
party  in  the  larger  field  of  political  activity.  Mu- 
nicipal candidatures  in  America  are,  therefore,  often  in- 
spired and  sometimes  even  dictated  from  the  headquarters 
of  the  state  organization,  a  practice  which  has  not  in  the 
main  contributed  to  the  good  governance  of  the  cities,  — 
which  has,  indeed,  more  often  been  very  pernicious  in  its 
effects.  From  this  sort  of  interference  the  local  party 
organizations  in  England  have  been  almost  entirely  free ; 
for  the  borough  associations  have  virtual  autonomy  in  all 
that  relates  to  local  candidacy  and  the  conduct  of  local 
campaigns.  In  this  very  important  respect  the  principle 
of  municipal  home  rule  has  been  carried  to  its  logical  con- 
clusion, and  the  outcome  has  been  of  advantage  to  all 
concerned. 

1  A  very  comprehensive  discussion  of  this  feature  may  be  found  in  Lowell's 
Government  of  England,  I.  chs.  xxvii-xxviii. 


248  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

Non-resi-  A  feature  of  English  borough  campaigns  which  impresses 

the  American  observer  is  the  very  large  number  of  non- 
resident candidates.  Few  principles  are  more  solidly 
embedded  in  American  minds  than  that  which  regards  the 
non-resident  aspirant  for  office  as  an  unwelcome  intruder ; 
hence  in  the  United  States  the  candidate  who  contests  a 
ward  in  which  he  does  not  reside  finds  himself  under  a 
handicap  that  in  most  cases  utterly  eliminates  all  reasonable 
hope  of  success.  In  England,  public  opinion  on  this  matter 
is  very  different ;  for,  although  the  English  voter,  like  the 
American,  undoubtedly  prefers  his  own  neighbor  to  a 
stranger,  he  does  not  allow  this  preference  to  militate 
decisively  against  the  outsider's  prospects  of  election. 
Evidence  of  this  political  hospitality  may  be  found  in  the 
fact  that  in  most  of  the  larger  English  cities  the  majority 
of  the  councilmen  live  outside  the  wards  which  they  are 
elected  to  represent.  In  Liverpool,  for  instance,  only  25 
out  of  137  members  of  the  council  reside  in  the  wards 
from  which  they  are  elected ;  in  Birmingham  the  per- 
centage of  resident  councillors  is  even  smaller;  in  Man- 
chester the  non-residents  are  in  the  majority ;  and  the 
same  is  true  of  the  membership  of  the  London  County 
Council,  of  which  no  less  than  68  of  the  118  councillors 
live  outside  the  districts  which  they  represent.1  In  many 
cases  these  non-resident  councillors  reside  not  only  beyond 
the  limits  of  their  wards,  but  even  beyond  the  limits  of  the 
city  itself.  Many  come  from  the  residential  suburbs ;  and  it 
is  not  without  significance  that  even  the  wards  which  are 
peopled  largely  by  the  laboring  classes  often  choose  as  their 
representatives  men  who  live  in  the  fashionable  suburban 
districts.  In  fact,  this  readiness  on  the  part  of  the  people  to 
vote  for  candidates  who  are  neither  of  their  own  neighbor- 

1  National  Civic  Federation  Commission  on  Public  Ownership  and  Opera- 
tion, Pt.  I.  Vol.  I.  46. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  249 

hood  nor  of  their  own  social  class  is  psychologically  one 
of  the  most  interesting  points  of  contrast  between  the 
English  and  American  municipal  electorates;  and  without 
doubt  it  affords  at  least  a  partial  explanation  of  the 
marked  differences  in  the  general  caliber  of  the  municipal 
councils  in  the  two  countries. 

The    activities    of     the    party    leaders    in     municipal  Prevention 
election  campaigns  are  considerably  circumscribed  by  the 


strictness  of  the  legal  regulations  relating  to  campaign  Prac*1(res  at 
methods.  These  laws,  which  are  substantially  the  same  elections. 
as  those  applying  to  parliamentary  elections,  are  based  on 
the  Municipal  Elections  (Corrupt  and  Illegal  Practices)  Act 
of  1884.1  By  the  terms  of  this  important  enactment  a 
fundamental  distinction  is  drawn  between  two  classes  of 
practices,  which  are  respectively  denominated  as  "corrupt" 
and  "  illegal.  "  Within  the  category  of  "corrupt  practices" 
are  comprised  all  election  tactics  that  are  morally  repre- 
hensible, such  as  bribery,  intimidation,  personation,  and 
the  like.  Within  the  category  of  "  illegal  practices,"  on 
the  other  hand,  are  included  those  incidents  of  a  campaign 
which,  though  not  involving  any  moral  turpitude,  lend  them- 
selves to  make  an  election  contest  unfair  to  some  of  the 
candidates,  or  undignified,  or  unnecessarily  expensive.  Such 
forbidden  practices  are,  for  instance,  the  hiring  of  convey- 
ances to  take  voters  to  the  polls,  the  providing  of  decorations, 
posters,  or  campaign  buttons,  and  the  making  of  subscrip- 
tions to  any  local  enterprise  during  the  period  of  the 
election  campaign.  In  fact,  the  laws  proscribe  the  ex- 
penditure of  money,  either  by  or  on  behalf  of  a  candidate, 
for  practically  everything  outside  the  strictly  necessary 
expenses  of  a  dignified  contest. 

The  machinery  provided  for  the  enforcement  of  these 
regulations  has  proved  tolerably  effective.     Within  twenty- 
1  47-48  Victoria,  c.  70. 


250  GOVERNMENT  OF   EUROPEAN  CITIES 

eight  days  after  a  municipal  election  each  candidate  must 
transmit  to  the  town  clerk  an  itemized  return  of  his  election 
expenses,  accompanied  by  the  necessary  vouchers  and  duly 
Limitation  verified  by  affidavit.  In  a  borough  or  a  ward  which  con- 
ex^nsesalgn  tains  500  voters  or  less,  a  candidate  may,  for  strictly  legal 
expenses,  disburse  a  sum  not  exceeding  twenty -five  pounds 
($125) ;  when  the  enrolment  is  above  500,  he  may  expend 
not  more  than  threepence  for  each  additional  voter.  Thus, 
in  a  ward  which  contains  2000  voters  the  maximum  legiti- 
mate expenditure  would  be  $250.  It  is  worth  noting, 
moreover,  that  the  restriction  applies  not  only  to  expendi- 
tures made  by  the  candidate  himself,  but  to  those  made 
by  any  of  his  agents  ;  and  by  an  agent  is  meant  not  merely 
one  who  has  received  specific  recognition  as  an  election 
agent,  but  any  supporter  whose  political  relations  to  the 
candidate,  and  whose  efforts  in  his  behalf,  are  such  as  to 
other  give  rise  to  a  presumption  of  agency.  In  addition  to 

setting  a  maximum  limit  to  the  legitimate  expenses  of  a 
candidate,  the  law  puts  restrictions  on  many  other  inci- 
dents of  an  election  campaign,  —  prescribing,  for  example, 
the  number  of  committee-rooms  that  may  be  maintained, 
the  number  of  clerks  and  messengers  that  may  be  employed, 
and  so  on. 

Penalties  The  penalties  provided  in  the  event  of  violation  of  the 

lawiTrefa-  e  election  laws  are  very  severe.  If  a  candidate  has  been 
elections  personally  guilty  of  any  corrupt  or  illegal  practice,  or  has 
himself  disbursed  more  than  the  established  maximum 
in  expenses,  he  not  only  loses  his  election,  but  is  also  dis- 
qualified from  ever  holding  public  office  again,  and  even 
from  voting.  If  he  is  not  personally  guilty  of  any  offence, 
but  has  profited  by  corrupt  or  illegal  practices  on  the  part 
of  his  agent,  he  is  unseated,  and  the  disfranchisement  is 
visited  upon  the  agent  concerned.  He  may  also  be  un- 
seated if  it  is  proved  that  forbidden  methods  have  been 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  251 

extensively  employed  in  his  behalf  even  by  persons  who 
cannot  in  any  way  be  regarded  as  his  agents.  The  general 
purpose  of  the  laws  is  to  secure  not  only  an  honest  election, 
but  also  one  that  will  be  dignified  and  absolutely  fair  to 
all  candidates,  no  matter  what  their  respective  financial 
resources  may  be.  Although  the  maximum  amount  of 
legitimate  expenditure  is  not  unreasonably  low,  it  suffices 
to  preclude  any  attempt  to  secure  a  seat  in  the  council  by 
those  whose  only  important  qualification  is  a  readiness  to 
contribute  generously  to  party  funds. 

The  right  of  a  councillor-elect  to  retain  his  seat  is  decided  Contested 
not  by  the  council,  but  by  the  courts.  Either  a  defeated 
candidate  or  any  four  qualified  voters  may  protest  a 
municipal  election  by  lodging  a  petition  inside  of  a  given 
time  with  the  court  of  King's  Bench,  which  straightway 
refers  such  petition  to  some  barrister  of  not  less  than  fifteen 
years'  standing.1  This  officer  proceeds  to  the  borough, 
where  he  takes  evidence  under  oath,  hears  counsel  for  the 
petitioner  and  for  the  defendant  councillor,  and  determines 
whether  the  election  laws  have  been  violated.  This  de- 
cision he  certifies  to  the  court,  which  issues  a  decree  con- 
firming or  voiding  the  election,  the  costs  of  the  protest 
being  apportioned  as  the  trial  barrister  may  deem  equitable. 
By  thus  giving  the  work  of  investigation  to  a  non-partisan 
and  disinterested  authority  the  system  proves  its  wisdom, 
for  there  are  obvious  objections  to  the  practice  of  permit- 
ting members  of  a  borough  council,  who  are  very  apt  to 
be  guided  by  personal  or  partisan  motives,  to  pass  upon 
questions  relating  to  the  election  of  their  own  colleagues. 
On  the  other  hand,  there  are  equally  obvious  objections  to 

1  The  various  legal  regulations  concerning  the  trial  of  election  petitions  are 
incorporated  in  the  Municipal  Corporations  Act  of  1882,  §§  87  ff .  Full  details 
concerning  the  present-day  administration  of  the  law  may  be  found  in  R.  G. 
Ellis's  article  on  "  Elections  and  Electors  "  in  the  Encyclopaedia  of  Local  Gov- 
ernment Law,  HI.  16-40. 


252  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

the  plan  of  thrusting  the  decision  of  such  matters  upon 
the  regular  law  courts  of  the  land  ;  for  such  a  policy, 
though  it  may  secure  the  fair  determination  of  matters 
at  issue,  tends  to  draw  the  judiciary  into  the  arena  of  party 
politics,  and  hence,  in  the  long  run,  is  apt  to  be  detri- 
mental to  the  general  prestige  of  the  courts.  Of  this 
we  have  had,  in  the  United  States,  convincing  proof. 
Merits  of  the  The  English  system  has  avoided  both  evils  by  committing 
the  decision  of  election  protests  to  semi-judicial  officers 


election         whom  the  iudges  appoint  but  for  whose  adjudication  the 

protests. 

courts  are  not  responsible.  Indeed,  the  ease  with  which  a 
protest  may  be  lodged,  the  promptness  with  which  the 
contestation  is  heard  and  determined,  and  the  fairness 
which  characterizes  the  verdicts  of  the  deciding  authorities 
have  served  to  make  candidates  and  their  party  supporters 
recognize  that  strict  observance  of  the  election  laws  is  the 
part  of  prudence  in  all  municipal  contests.1  It  is  not  to 
be  understood,  of  course,  that  corrupt  and  illegal  practices 
in  English  municipal  elections  have  been  wholly  eliminated 
either  by  the  strictness  of  the  laws  or  by  the  excellence 
of  the  machinery  provided  for  their  enforcement.  Candi- 
dates may,  and  sometimes  do,  while  keeping  well  within 
the  letter  of  the  law,  use  tactics  which  are  unfair  to  their 
opponents.  At  the  same  time,  it  is  quite  beyond  question 
that  the  influence  of  the  act  of  1884  and  of  similar  enact- 
ments has  been  extremely  salutary,  and  that  the  legislation 
has  contributed  substantially  to  the  marked  improvement 
in  the  general  conduct  of  English  elections,  both  parlia- 
mentary and  municipal,  during  the  last  quarter-century. 

Immediately  after  the  annual  election  the  council  holds 
its  organization  meeting,  at  which  the  successful  candidates 

1  The  evidence  brought  together  a  decade  ago  by  a  select  parliamentary 
committee  on  the  subject  of  contested  elections  shows  that  petitions  following 
parliamentary  elections  are  not  by  any  means  so  satisfactorily  handled.  See 
House  of  Commons  Papers  (1898),  IX.  658. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  253 

appear  in  order  to  take  their  oaths  of  qualification.  The  Selection 
first  duty  of  the  new  council  is  to  elect  a  mayor,  whose  mayor, 
task  it  is  to  preside  over  the  deliberations  for  the  current 
year.1  By  the  terms  of  the  Municipal  Corporations  Act  of 
1835,  the  mayor  was  to  be  chosen  from  the  ranks  of  the 
councillors  themselves ;  but  the  code  of  1882  widened  the 
field  of  choice  by  permitting  the  council  to  select  "  any  fit 
person  from  among  the  aldermen  or  council,  or  persons  Quaiifica- 
qualified  to  be  such."  2  At  the  present  time  it  is  therefore  office.10' 
legally  possible  for  the  council  to  select  as  mayor  of  the 
borough  one  who  is  not  even  a  voter  in  the  municipality, 
provided,  however,  that  he  reside  within  fifteen  miles  of 
the  borough  and  is  otherwise  qualified  as  a  candidate  for 
election  to  the  council.  But  although  the  law  permits  a 
council  to  go  outside  its  own  membership,  and  even  outside 
the  limits  of  the  electorate,  in  search  of  a  mayor,  this  is, 
of  course,  not  the  practice  usually  followed.  In  most  of  the 
larger  boroughs  the  mayor  is  selected  from  the  ranks  of 
the  council  itself,  and  particularly  from  among  those  mem- 
bers who  have  had  one  or  more  terms  of  service  as  alder- 
men. Departures  from  this  policy  are  doubtless  more 
common  now  than  they  were  a  decade  or  more  ago,  for  in 
England  the  selection  of  a  non-member  is  apparently  not 
now  regarded  as  unusual  enough  to  attract  any  comment. 
At  the  same  time,  such  a  choice  is  the  exception  rather 
than  the  rule,  and  it  is  distinctly  unusual  in  the  smaller 
boroughs. 

The  selection  of  a  mayor  is  seldom  a  difficult  problem  The  coun- 

...       cil's  range 

in  English  municipalities ;  for  the  post  is  not,  as  it  is  in  Of  choice, 
the  cities  of  the  United  States,  one  of  any  serious  adminis- 
trative importance.     Executive  ability  and  experience  are 

1  The  mayor's  term  is  ordinarily  one  year  only,  but  reflections  are  common. 
In  some  boroughs  tradition  requires  an  annual  change. 

2  Municipal  Corporations  Act  (1882),  §  15. 


254  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN   CITIES 

in  no  wise  essential  to  the  proper  performance  of  mayoral 
duties ;  for  these,  being  very  largely  of  a  social  nature,  make 
heavier  demands  upon  the  mayor's  purse  and  personality 
than  upon  his  skill  as  a  governing  authority.  He  must 
entertain  distinguished  visitors  to  the  borough,  must  assume 
a  prominent  part  in  all  civic  ceremonies  and  festivities, 
and  must,  above  all  things,  be  a  leader  in  local  philanthropic 
enterprises,  incidentally  contributing  with  generosity  to 
their  exchequers.  His  only  special  administrative  function 
is  that  of  presiding  at  meetings  of  the  council,  and  even  this 
he  need  not  perform  if  it  be  not  to  his  liking.  In  short,  to 
the  end  that  he  may  fill  his  position  capably  and  satisfac- 
torily, the  mayor  of  an  English  borough  must  ordinarily 
be  a  man  of  some  wealth,  preferably  with  leisure  and  social 
attainments. 

English  Ordinarily  the  English  mayor  receives  no  stipend.     The 

usually  council  is  empowered  by  law  to  grant  him  from  the 
unpaid.  borough  funds  "  such  remuneration  as  it  may  think  reason- 
able "  ;  but  many  boroughs  pay  nothing  at  all,  and,  save 
in  the  largest  boroughs,  those  which  grant  remuneration 
rarely  afford  anything  approaching  his  personal  outlay  in 
the  performance  of  his  civic  functions.  Tenure  of  the 
office  even  for  a  single  year  thus  involves  some  financial 
sacrifice ; 1  but  as  a  rule  the  post  is  satisfactorily  filled 
without  much  trouble,  for  wealth  and  social  aspirations 
are  likely  to  be  more  plentiful  than  administrative  energy 
and  experience.  It  has  sometimes  been  said  that  a 
wealthy  peer  makes  an  ideal  English  mayor;  at  any  rate, 
if  any  such  happens  to  reside  within  the  fifteen-mile  limit 
he  is  pretty  certain  to  be  invited  to  the  post,  and,  if  neces- 
sary, cajoled  or  persuaded  into  accepting  it.  In  default  of 

1  Statements  of  the  mayor's  expenditures  are,  of  course,  not  made  public ; 
but  tenure  of  the  office  in  a  city  like  Liverpool  or  Manchester  is  estimated  to 
involve  an  outlay  of  from  $15,000  to  $25,000  per  year. 


255 

a  peer,  some  opulent  bourgeois  who  is  willing  to  prove  his 
liberality  may  have  an  opportunity  to  do  so  as  the  chief 
magistrate  of  the  borough.  Sometimes,  it  is  true,  men  of 
slender  means  are  chosen  to  the  mayoralty ;  but  the  post 
presents  so  little  attraction  to  such  men  that  it  is  apt  to 
be  avoided  by  them.  This  condition  of  things  is  by  some 
persons,  especially  by  the  labor  leaders,  regarded  as  un- 
fortunate ;  for  it  practically  excludes  from  the  office  many 
who  might  otherwise  be  installed  for  a  year  or  two  in 
fitting  recognition  of  lengthy  and  faithful  service  at  the 
council-board.1 

In  most  cases  the  mayor  takes  an  active  interest  in  the  influence  of 
affairs  of  the  borough  during  his  term,  even  if  his  actual  m^ough 
part  in  local  administration  is  not  much  more  influential  a.dmmi8tra- 

tion. 

than  that  of  the  ordinary  alderman  or  councillor.  He 
presides  at  the  council-meetings,  is  ex  officio  a  member  of 
all  council  committees,  usually  performing  actual  service 
on  one  or  more  of  them,  and  he  may  even  be  chairman 
of  some  committee ;  but  he  has  no  veto  power  over  reso- 
lutions of  the  council,  makes  no  important  appointments, 
takes  no  special  part  in  the  preparation  of  the  municipal 
budget,  and  exercises  no  direct  control  over  any  of  the 
civic  departments.  He  is  ex  officio  a  justice  of  the  peace, 
but  he  very  rarely  exercises  any  judicial  functions  whatever. 
Hence  it  is  that  some  English  mayors  know  compara- 
tively little  about  the  actual  administration  of  their 
municipalities,  and  that  not  all  of  them  acquire,  while  in 
office,  any  comprehensive  grasp  of  municipal  problems. 
All  this  is  not  meant  to  imply,  however,  that  the  mayor 
of  an  English  borough  is  free  from  copious  demands  upon 
his  time  and  attention.  Almost  every  charitable  organi- 
zation in  the  borough  expects  him  to  preside  at  its  annual 

1  See  the  evidence  on  this  point  in  the  Report  of  the  Royal  Commission  on  the 
Amalgamation  of  London  (1894),  especially  pp.  313  fl. 


256 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


The  case  of 
Mr.  Cham- 
berlain. 


The  alder- 
men, how 
selected. 


meeting,  to  make  a  speech  in  eulogy  of  its  accomplish- 
ments, and  to  subscribe  something  to  its  funds.  Indeed, 
for  most  local  gatherings  of  a  non-political  character  the 
mayor  of  the  borough  is,  as  a  matter  of  course,  requisi- 
tioned as  chairman.  In  addition  he  must  spend  certain 
hours  of  each  day  in  his  office  at  the  town  hall,  where 
his  chief  function  is  to  act  as  a  "repository  for  every- 
body's grievances."  So  slight  is  his  influence  upon  the 
course  of  local  administrative  policy  that  very  rarely  can  an 
English  mayor  be  adjudged,  at  the  close  of  his  term, 
either  a  signal  failure  or  a  striking  success,  though  it  is 
of  course  true  that  a  man  of  marked  individuality  and 
personal  vigor  may  use  the  mayor's  prerogatives  in  such 
a  way  as  to  leave  a  distinct  stamp  upon  the  affairs  of  the 
municipality.  A  notable  example  of  such  efficiency  is 
seen  in  the  career  of  Mr.  Joseph  Chamberlain,  M.P.,  mayor 
of  Birmingham  from  1873  to  1876;  but  the  very  fact 
that  Mr.  Chamberlain's  administration  drew  to  itself 
such  marked  attention  is  sufficient  proof  of  its  unusual 
character.  Viewed  as  a  whole,  the  office  of  mayor  in 
England  approaches  neither  in  power  nor  in  influence  its 
prototype  in  the  cities  of  France,  Germany,  or  the  United 
States. 

Having  selected  its  mayor,  the  new  borough  council 
proceeds  to  choose  a  certain  number  of  aldermen,  the 
quota  being  fixed  by  law  at  one-third  of  the  number 
of  councillors.  Liverpool,  for  instance,  has  136  members 
in  its  council,  of  whom  34  are  aldermen  and  102  coun- 
cillors ;  Birmingham  has  72  members,  of  whom  18  are 
aldermen  and  54  councillors.  The  aldermen  are  chosen 
for  a  six-year  term,  and  one-half  retire  triennially.  The 
range  of  choice  is  as  wide  as  that  for  the  selection  of  the 
mayor ;  for  the  council  may  either  take  aldermen  from 
the  ranks  of  the  councillors,  or  go  outside  its  own  mem- 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  257 

bership  and  enlist  the  services  of  any  one  who  is 
qualified  for  election  to  the  council.  Usually  it  advances 
some  of  the  councillors  to  the  rank  of  aldermen,  and  then  who  are 
forthwith  holds  by-elections  in  order  to  fill  the  vacancies  aldermen, 
created  among  the  councilmen ;  but  the  practice  of  choos- 
ing as  aldermen  persons  who  have  not  been  elected  coun- 
cillors is  so  common  that  it  cannot  be  regarded  as 
in  any  sense  unusual  or  exceptional.  Candidates  who 
have  failed  of  election  to  the  council  frequently  secure 
places  at  the  council-board  in  this  way ;  indeed,  the 
system  makes  it  quite  possible  for  the  council  to  enlist 
the  services  of  men  who,  though  possessed  of  marked 
administrative  abilities,  may  not  have  the  qualities  which 
serve  to  insure  success  at  the  polls.  It  is,  however,  not 
the  practice  of  the  council  to  choose  as  aldermen  citizens 
who  have  had  no  experience  in  municipal  affairs.  It 
may,  to  be  sure,  do  even  this  occasionally ;  but  as  a  rule 
it  selects  men  who  have  at  some  time  or  other  served  one 
or  more  terms  in  the  council,  or  who  have  in  some  other 
way  acquired  considerable  familiarity  with  local  ad- 
ministration. Reelections,  moreover,  are  common ;  and 
it  is  not  unusual  to  find  aldermen  who  are  serving  their 
third  or  even  their  fourth  terms.  The  alderman  thus 
possesses,  on  the  whole,  a  somewhat  more  extended 
experience  in  municipal  management  than  the  council- 
man does ;  hence  his  presence  in  the  council  is  sup- 
posed to  add  stability  to  the  body,  as  well  as  a  tendency 
to  conservatism. 

In  the  selection  of  aldermen  the  council  is  undoubtedly  Partisan 
influenced  to  a  large  extent  by  partisan  considerations, 
If  a  majority  of  the  councillors  in  any  large  borough  are 
Liberals  in  politics,  one  may  rest  assured  that  a  majority 
of  the  aldermen  selected  will  represent  the  same  political 
faith.  Not  that  a  party  majority  among  the  councilmen 


258  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

uses  its  power  to  select  all  the  aldermen  from  among  its 
own  political  partisans ;  on  the  contrary,  the  minority 
expects,  and  usually  receives,  its  fair  quota.  In  Birming- 
ham, for  example,  five  of  the  eighteen  aldermen  are 
Liberals,  though  nearly  four-fifths  of  the  councillors  are 
Conservatives.  In  fact,  there  is  in  some  boroughs  a  more 
or  less  definite  understanding  between  the  leaders  of  the 
two  parties  that  the  minority  shall  in  all  cases  receive 
fair  consideration  when  the  council  proceeds  to  the  selec- 
tion of  aldermen.1  Another  circumstance  which  helps  to 
check  the  force  of  the  partisan  motive  at  the  aldermanic 
elections  is  found  in  the  somewhat  strong  tradition  in  favor 
of  reelecting  aldermen  whose  services  have  been  valuable ; 
and  in  addition  to  this  motive,  which  perhaps  in  most  of 
the  larger  cities  continues  to  be  more  influential  than  any 
other,  considerations  of  experience  and  administrative 
capabilities  are  almost  always  taken  well  into  account. 
The  aider-  It  should  be  made  entirely  clear  that  the  English  alder- 
form  a°sepa-  men  do  not,  like  the  American,  constitute  a  separate  organ  of 
rate  body,  municipal  government.  The  English  council  is  not  a  bicam- 
eral body:  in  it  councillors  and  aldermen  always  sit  together. 
At  the  common  council-board  the  votes  of  councillors  and 
aldermen  have  precisely  equal  weight ;  and,  strictly  speak- 
ing, the  aldermen  have  no  powers  of  any  sort  which  do 
not  pertain  to  the  ordinary  councillors.  They  differ  in  the 
methods  by  which  they  are  elected  to  office,  in  length  of 
term,  and  in  the  amount  of  prestige  which  attaches  to  their 
respective  posts,  but  not  in  point  of  powers.  In  many 
boroughs  they  hold  by  custom  the  chairmanships  of  some 
important  council  committees ;  but  they  are  not  required 
by  law  to  do  so.  At  the  council  elections  they  also  serve 

1  In  Leeds,  for  example,  an  agreement  was  made  in  1904  that  aldermen 
should  be  chosen  in  exact  proportion  to  the  respective  strength  of  the  Conserva- 
tive, Liberal,  and  Labor  parties  as  shown  at  the  municipal  elections. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  259 

as  deputy  returning-officers  for  the  various  wards,1  a 
practice  that  has  created  a  somewhat  vague  relation  be- 
tween the  alderman  and  the  ward  to  which  he  is  posted. 
Hence  an  alderman  is  sometimes  spoken  of  as  "  represent- 
ing "  such  and  such  a  ward.  The  aldermen  are,  however, 
in  no  sense  the  representatives  of  wards ;  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  several  of  them  may  live  in  one  ward  and  none  at  all 
in  another,  for  in  the  selection  of  aldermen  the  council  gives 
very  little  heed  to  the  matter  of  geographical  distribution. 
There  is,  in  fact,  so  little  to  distinguish  the  aldermen  from 
the  regular  councillors  that  they  may  be  said  to  constitute 
hardly  more  than  a  special  element  or  group  in  the  council. 

The  English  borough  council,  made  up  of  the  mayor,  the  Organiza- 
aldermen,  and  the  councillors,  is  the  sole  organ  of  borough  procure  o 
government.  It  meets  in  the  town  hall  at  regular  intervals,  the  council- 
—  monthly  in  the  smaller  boroughs  and  fortnightly  or 
weekly  in  the  larger.  The  date  of  the  annual  meeting  at 
which  the  mayor  and  aldermen  are  elected  (November  9) 
is  fixed  by  law ;  the  dates  of  all  other  meetings  are  fixed 
by  the  council  in  its  Standing  Orders.  One-third  of  the 
total  membership  constitutes  a  quorum.  The  mayor  ordi- 
narily presides;  in  the  event  of  his  absence  the  council 
invites  one  of  its  own  members,  usually  an  alderman,  to 
take  the  chair.  In  general  the  meetings  are  open  to  the 
public,  but  closed  sessions  may  be  decided  upon  by  a 
majority  vote.  The  rules  of  order  and  procedure  are  such 
as  the  council  may  choose  to  adopt ;  but  they  do  not  vary 
greatly  in  different  boroughs,  for  in  the  main  they  follow 
the  usual  so-termed  "  parliamentary  procedure."  The 
records  are  kept  by  the  town  clerk,  or,  in  the  largest  cities, 
by  one  of  his  assistants ;  and  after  the  council-meetings 
they  are  usually  printed  in  the  local  newspapers.  It  is  of 
some  significance  that  in  most  American  cities  the  news- 

1  Municipal  Corporations  Act,  §§  53,  67,  58,  67. 


260  GOVERNMENT   OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

papers  will  publish  the  council  minutes  only  when  they 
are  substantially  paid  for  so  doing,  whereas  in  the  English 
boroughs  they  find  it  worth  while  to  print  them  gratui- 
tously, because  their  readers  are  sufficiently  interested  in 
what  is  taking  place  in  the  council-chamber. 

The  coun-  The  council  is  both  the  legislative  and  the  administra- 
tive organ  of  the  English  city.  Unlike  the  French,  the 
German,  and  especially  the  American  plan  of  municipal 
government,  the  English  system  affords  no  recognition  to 
the  principle  of  division  of  powers  between  legislative  and 
executive  organs,  and  attempts  to  provide  no  arrangement 
of  checks  and  balances.  In  order  to  set  forth  the  juris- 
diction of  the  English  council,  therefore,  it  is  only  necessary 
to  discover  what  powers  have  been  committed  to  the 
borough  in  its  corporate  capacity,  —  a  task  not  altogether 
easy,  however,  for  borough  powers  are  not  derived  from  a 
single  source,  nor  are  those  of  all  the  boroughs  precisely 
the  same.  Of  the  prerogatives  possessed  by  the  French  com- 
mune one  may  readily  obtain  an  adequate  idea  by  referring 
to  the  Municipal  Code  of  1884 ;  but  of  the  administrative 
functions  which  have  been  intrusted  to  the  English  borough 
councils  one  gets  a  very  inadequate  idea  from  an  examina- 
tion of  the  English  Municipal  Corporations  Consolidation 
Act  of  1882.  One  may,  for  instance,  search  in  vain  through 
the  provisions  of  this  act  for  any  information  concerning 
the  powers  of  the  borough  council  in  such  matters  as  street 
improvements,  public  lighting,  sewerage,  water  supply, 
parks,  housing,  and  various  other  departments  of  local 
administrative  activity  over  which  the  borough  authorities 
do,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  exercise  jurisdiction.  Borough 

Whence  powers  do  not,  indeed,  rest  upon  any  one  enactment ; 
they  are  obtained  from  a  variety  of  sources,  of  which  the 
act  of  1882  is  but  one,  and  perhaps  not  the  most  important 
one.  Parliament  has  never  been  partial  to  the  practice  of 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  261 

conveying  privileges  to  subordinate  authorities  in  broad 
and  general  terms ;  it  has  rather  dealt  piecemeal  with  the 
various  branches  of  local  jurisdiction  by  conferring  powers 
at  different  times,  by  different  enactments,  and  frequently 
in  different  degrees.1 

The  first  and  oldest  source  of  borough  powers  is,  of  i.  from  the 
course,  the  common  law.  For  centuries  before  the  passing  JJJJT 
of  the  Municipal  Corporations  Act  of  1835  the  boroughs 
had  ranked  as  corporations  aggregate,  with  all  the  common- 
law  powers  ordinarily  attaching  to  such  bodies,  —  as,  for 
example,  the  right  to  sue  and  be  sued  in  the  regular  law 
courts  of  the  land,  to  hold  property,  to  borrow  money  on 
the  corporate  credit,  and  to  have  corporate  seals.  These 
powers  the  act  of  1835  did  not  take  away ;  it  merely 
rendered  more  effective  and  more  nearly  uniform  the 
channels  through  which  they  should  thenceforth  be  exer- 
cised. Hence,  even  at  the  present  day,  some  few  borough 
powers  of  importance  have  their  real  source  in  the  common 
law  and  not  in  any  statute  or  statutes  ;  and  when  questions 
relating  to  the  interpretation  of  these  powers  arise  they 
must  be  referred  to  the  municipal  jurisprudence  of  the 
ante-reform  period. 

By  the  act  of  1835,  however,  as  amended  and  recast  in  2.  from  the 
that  of  1882  and  in  subsequent  amending  enactments,  the  corpora* 
boroughs  have  gained  some  powers  which  at  common  law  tlonsAct; 
they  did  not  possess,  —  as,  for  example,  the  right  to  estab- 
lish and  maintain  local  police  systems.     On  the  other  hand, 
some  of  their  ancient  privileges  —  such  as  their  authority  in 
the  matter  of  judicial  administration  —  have  been  taken 
away  from  them.     None  of  the  general  municipal  statutes 
have,  however,  attempted  either  to  extend  or  to  narrow  ma- 

1  The  most  convenient  handbook  of  borough  powers  is  A.  E.  Lauder's 
Municipal  Manual  (London,  1907)  ;  but  there  are  many  special  treatises  dealing 
•with  particular  services. 


262  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

terially  the  scope  of  municipal  activities  ;  they  have  in  the 
main  dealt  with  matters  affecting  the  organization  of  the 
borough  administration. 

3.  from  Most  of  the  important  powers  now  possessed  by  the  Eng- 

statutefl-  ^sh  boroughs,  especially  those  which  have  to  do  with  the 
provision  of  public  services,  are  derived  not  from  either  of 
the  two  foregoing  sources,  but  from  a  multitude  of  special 
enactments  made  by  Parliament  from  year  to  year,  some 
of  them  giving  special  powers  to  all  the  boroughs,  others 
to  only  a  limited  number.  Some  of  these  measures,  like  the 
Public  Health  Act  of  1875,1  are  mandatory  :  they  confer 
on  all  the  boroughs  powers  of  which  they  must  avail  them- 
selves. Others,  like  the  Light  Railways  Act  of  1896,2  are 
permissive  or  adoptive:  they  confer  powers  upon  such 
boroughs  as  may  choose  to  "adopt"  their  empowering 
provisions  in  the  manner  they  prescribe.  Still  others, 
like  the  Housing  of  the  Working  Classes  Act  of  1890,  are 
in  part  mandatory  and  in  part  permissive.  The  question 
whether  the  municipality  will  or  will  not  assume  permis- 
sive powers  conferred  upon  the  borough  by  statute  is  al- 
ways decided  by  the  council  on  a  two-thirds  vote ;  for  the 
English  authorities  have  thus  far  manifested  no  disposi- 
tion to  follow  the  practice,  so  common  in  American  cities, 
of  submitting  such  matters  by  referendum  to  the  whole 
municipal  electorate.  Even  with  the  two-thirds  restric- 
tion, their  policy  of  adoption  has  no  doubt  operated  in  the 
direction  of  conservatism ;  for  English  cities  have  not 
on  the  whole  shown  any  unseemly  haste  in  assuming  the 
somewhat  extensive  privileges  put  at  their  disposal  by  the 
national  legislature.8 

1  38-39  Victoria,  c.  55.  2  59-60  Victoria,  c.  48. 

8  The  procedure  followed  in  " adopting"  legislation  is  fully  explained  in  the 
article  on  "  Adoptive  Acts  "  by  Messrs.  H.  J.  Comyns  and  W.  V.  Ball  in  the 
Encyclopaedia  of  Local  Government  Law,  I.  234-269. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  263 

A  fourth  and  increasingly  important  source  of  English  4.  from  Pri- 
municipal  powers,  especially  in  the  larger  boroughs,  is  the  SS£«itf 
multitude  of  so-called  "  private  "  acts  by  means  of  which 
Parliament  has,  from  time  to  time,  been  in  the  habit  of 
granting  special  powers  to  designated  cities.  When  the 
provisions  of  a  general  adoptive  statute  do  not  seem  to 
suit  the  particular  needs  of  any  borough,  the  local  authori- 
ties may  apply  to  Parliament  for  a  special  enactment 
drafted  in  accordance  with  their  own  ideas.  Applications 
of  this  sort  are  so  extremely  numerous,  and  are  so  readily 
granted  by  Parliament,  that  in  the  minds  of  many  persons 
this  feature  of  English  legislative  practice  constitutes  an 
important  defect  in  the  whole  system  of  relations  between 
the  central  and  local  governments.  The  number  of  private  importance 
bills  that  pass  Parliament  at  every  session  is  very  great ;  80urce. 
indeed,  there  are  some  large  English  boroughs  that  let 
hardly  a  session  go  by  without  trying  to  obtain  special 
powers  or  privileges  of  one  sort  or  another.  There  seems 
to  be  no  limit  to  the  variety  of  concessions  asked  for :  au- 
thority to  regulate  matters  not  ordinarily  within  the  ju- 
risdiction of  the  borough,  powers  to  expropriate  property 
for  special  purposes,  wider  latitude  in  the  provision  of  pub- 
lic services,  are  among  the  things  petitioned  for  almost 
every  year.  So  universal,  in  fact,  is  the  practice  of  apply- 
ing to  Parliament  for  special  privileges,  that  the  considera- 
tion of  private  bills  presented  not  only  by  the  boroughs, 
but  by  the  other  local  authorities,  lays  a  heavy  burden  upon 
the  time  and  patience  of  the  national  legislative  bodies.1 

This  ready  resort  to  Parliament  for  special  legislation  Private-bill 

«••!••  1-11  i-  procedure. 

is  no  doubt  due  in  part  to  the  facilities  which  have  been 
afforded  for  securing  it.      When  a  borough  desires  some 

1  An  interesting  discussion  on  "  The  Rise  and  Development  of  Legislation 
by  Private  Bill "  may  be  found  in  the  Royal  Statistical  Society's  Journal,  LXIX. 
1-31  (March,  1906). 


264  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN   CITIES 

special  privilege  or  power,  the  council  takes  the  first  step 
by  passing  a  resolution  authorizing  the  town  clerk  or  some 
other  solicitor  to  draft  a  bill  embodying  the  authority  de- 
sired. This  bill,  accompanied  by  a  petition  from  the 
council  asking  for  its  enactment,  is  handed  to  some  mem- 
ber of  Parliament,  —  preferably  the  member  who  represents 
the  borough  in  question,  —  and  is  by  him  brought  forward 
in  the  regular  way.1  If  it  proposes  to  lay  any  new  duties 
upon  a  government  department,  or  if,  on  the  other  hand, 
its  proposals  seem  to  be  of  sufficient  importance  to  entitle 
it  to  a  place  in  the  category  of  public  bills,  Parliament  may 
refuse  to  permit  its  introduction  as  a  private  one.  Once 
introduced,  however,  it  is,  in  accordance  with  the  standing 
rules  of  parliamentary  procedure,  submitted  to  a  prelimi- 
nary scrutiny  by  the  lord  chairman  of  committees  of  the 
House  of  Lords  and  the  chairman  of  committees  of  the 
House  of  Commons,  who  in  their  examination  are  assisted 
by  their  legal  advisers.  At  this  point  changes  in  the  bill 
may  be  insisted  upon.  Meantime  copies  of  the  measure 
are  sent  to  all  the  authorities  concerned,  that  an  opportu- 
nity may  be  afforded  for  the  development  of  any  local  op- 
position to  the  bill.  The  "  Standing  Orders  of  Lords  and 
Commons  relative  to  Private  Bills  "  are  very  stringent  in 
their  provisions,  demanding  especially  that  their  require- 
ments in  the  matter  of  notifying  interested  parties,  of  filing 
plans,  and  so  on  must  be  complied  with  strictly  if  the 
measure  is  to  proceed  any  farther.  When  a  measure  is 
presented  in  due  form  and  meets  with  no  opposition,  it  is 
usually,  after  a  little  further  scrutiny,  put  through  its  vari- 
ous readings  without  difficulty.  When,  on  the  other  hand, 

1  For  a  more  detailed  discussion  of  private-bill  procedure,  see  F.  Clifford, 
History  of  Private  Bill  Legislation  (2vols.,  London,  1886-1887)  ;  L.  Macassey, 
Private  Bills  and  Provisional  Orders  (London,  1887)  ;  F.  G.  Wheeler,  The 
Practice  of  Private  Bills  (London,  1900)  ;  and  the  voluminous  Eeport  of  the 
Select  Committee  on  Private  Business  (1902). 


THE   GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  265 

its  passage  is  opposed  by  individuals,  corporations,  or  other 
local  authorities,  it  is  referred,  usually  after  its  second 
reading,  to  a  select  committee  of  the  House  in  which  the  Hearings  on 
measure  was  first  introduced.  This  committee  duly  opens  privatebllls- 
a  hearing  or  inquiry  at  which  petitioners  or  remonstrants 
are  at  liberty  to  present  their  respective  arguments  either 
personally  or  by  counsel  whom  they  may  choose  to  em- 
ploy. At  this  hearing  the  borough  is  represented  either 
by  a  parliamentary  agent  or  by  some  barrister  employed 
to  "  promote "  the  measure.1  If  the  promoting  requires 
the  making  of  payments  out  of  the  borough  funds  (as  it 
almost  always  does),  the  action  of  the  council  in  present- 
ing the  bill  to  Parliament  must  be  submitted  to  the  voters 
of  the  borough,  and  must  be  sanctioned  by  them.  This  ref-  Expenses  of 
erendum  to  secure  the  assent  of  the  electorate  to  paid  pri^te"18 
promotion  of  private  bills  constitutes  almost  the  sole  use  legislation- 
of  the  plebiscite  procedure  in  English  boroughs;  but  as 
a  rule  pollings  of  this  sort,  although  they  occasionally 
develop  a  spirited  opposition  to  the  council's  projects,  arouse 
little  or  no  interest  among  the  voters.  In  addition  to  the 
assent  of  the  people,  the  sanction  of  the  Local  Government 
Board  must  be  had  before  any  such  expenditure  may  be  in- 
curred ;  but  its  consent  is  not  often  withheld.  The  op- 
ponents of  a  private  bill,  on  the  other  hand,  may  spend 
what  they  please  in  employing  counsel  and  other  legal 
agencies  to  the  advancement  of  their  cause,  an  arrange- 
ment which  attracts  to  London  a  considerable  body  of 
"  parliamentary  agents,"  who  make  a  specialty  of  practice 

1  Many  years  ago  the  question  arose  as  to  whether  parliamentary  agents 
employed  to  promote  private  bills  for  a  borough  might  legally  be  paid  out  of 
public  funds.  In  an  important  case  (Regina  vs.  Sheffield,  Law  Reports,  6 
Queen's  Bench,  652)  it  was  decided  by  the  higher  court  that  such  payments 
might  not  be  made  legally.  As  a  result  of  this  decision,  Parliament  in  1872 
passed  the  Borough  Funds  Act  (35-36  Victoria,  c.  91),  a  statute  which,  as 
somewhat  amended  in  1903,  now  affords  legal  authority  for  such  disburse- 
ments, provided  various  conditions  have  been  fulfilled. 


266 


GOVERNMENT  OF   EUROPEAN  CITIES 


Relation  of 
the  govern- 
meut  de- 
partments 
to  private- 
bill  legisla- 
tion. 


Objections 
to  the  sys- 
tem. 


before  select  committees.  It  may  be  noted,  however,  that 
the  select  committee  does  not  hold  "  hearings "  in  the 
American  sense ;  that  is  to  say,  it  does  not  afford  indis- 
criminate opportunities  of  protest  to  all  who  happen  to 
regard  the  proposed  bill  with  disfavor  whether  they  be 
directly  interested  in  or  affected  by  its  provisions  or  not. 
It  gives  audience  to  no  one,  either  personally  or  by  coun- 
sel, who  has  not  some  tangible  interest  in  the  bill. 

When  the  committee  has  heard  both  sides,  it  awaits  a 
report  on  the  merits  of  the  proposed  measure  from  the  ap- 
propriate government  department, — from  the  Local  Govern- 
ment Board,  for  example,  or  the  Board  of  Trade,  or  the  Home 
Secretary.  This  examination  of  all  private  bills  by  the  de- 
partments has  in  recent  years  become  so  thorough  and 
careful  that  an  adverse  report  from  this  quarter  is  now 
practically  fatal  to  the  success  of  any  measure  ;  for,  al- 
though the  committee  itself  may  favor  a  bill  which  is  thus 
opposed  by  a  government  department,  it  forwards  the  de- 
partmental report  along  with  its  own,  and  the  former,  of 
course,  carries  due  weight  when  the  matter  comes  up  in 
either  house  of  Parliament.  When  the  committee  has 
completed  its  consideration,  it  may  either  reject  the  meas- 
ure in  whole  or  in  part,  or  report  the  bill  to  Parliament 
with  or  without  amendments.  If  it  pursues  the  latter 
course,  and  if  the  government  department  has  also  indorsed 
the  measure,  the  passage  is  virtually  assured ;  though  it 
occasionally  happens  that  a  private  bill  encounters  serious 
opposition  down  to  the  very  time  of  its  final  enactment. 

The  whole  system  of  private-bill  legislation  is  not  a 
little  open  to  criticism.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  costly  to 
all  parties  concerned ;  for,  when  a  measure  is  opposed, 
parliamentary  agents  and  counsel  must  be  employed  at 
high  rates,  and  in  many  cases  expert  witnesses  must  be 
brought  before  the  committee  at  the  expense  of  those  in 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  267 

whose  behalf  they  testify.  Then,  too,  the  process  is  rather 
slow  ;  it  often  happens  that  a  private  measure  does  not 
receive  its  place  on  the  statute-books  until  a  year  and  a  half 
after  the  petitioners  make  their  first  preparations.  The 
system  also  lays  a  heavy  tax  upon  the  time  and  energies 
of  the  national  legislators,  who  should  be  left  free  to  de- 
vote themselves  to  the  consideration  of  broader  and  more 
important  matters.  Indeed,  in  view  of  the  inability  of  the 
committees  to  give  to  every  measure  the  detailed  inspec- 
tion which  it  deserves,  it  may  well  be  doubted  whether 
many  provisions  would  not  slip  through  Parliament  with- 
out attracting  proper  attention,  were  it  not  for  the 
watchful  eyes  of  the  government  departments.  In  this 
supervision  by  the  national  executive  authorities,  English 
legislative  procedure  has  provided  a  feature  which  the 
American  system  very  sadly  lacks,  —  the  securing  of 
some  approach  to  uniformity  in  the  field  of  private  legis- 
lation. On  the  other  hand,  the  English  method  affords 
less  publicity  to  private  measures  than  do  the  legislative 
systems  of  the  American  states  ;  for  in  England  none  but 
the  parties  directly  concerned  are  notified  that  a  bill  is 
before  a  committee,  and  only  those  directly  interested  are 
permitted  to  appear  in  support  of  it  or  in  opposition  to  it, 
whereas  in  the  United  States  the  hearing  on  every  measure 
is  publicly  advertised  and  may  be  supported  or  opposed 
before  the  committee  by  any  citizen,  no  matter  whether  he 
be  directly  interested  in  it  or  not. 

The  fifth  and  last  source  of  borough  powers  are  the  so-  5.  Powers 
termed  "provisional  orders,"  issued  either  to  boroughs  as 
a  class  or  to  specified  places  by  government  departments 
acting  under  authority  of  Parliament.  Thus  the  Local 
Government  Board  may,  by  provisional  order,  permit  a 
borough  to  extend  its  water  service,  or  construct  ad- 
ditional sewers,  or  change  its  boundaries,  or  municipalize 


268 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN   CITIES 


Confirma- 
tion of  pro- 
visional 
orders  by 
Parliament. 


the  local  gas  service  ;  the  Board  of  Trade  may  by  pro- 
visional order  empower  a  borough  to  establish  a  municipal 
electric-lighting  plant,  to  buy  out  a  street-railway  com- 
pany, or  to  provide  municipal  docks;  and  the  Board  of 
Education,  or  the  Board  of  Agriculture,  or  any  other 
central  department  may,  within  its  respective  sphere,  con- 
fer various  powers. 

Provisional  orders  are  granted  in  response  to  requests 
from  the  borough  authorities  ;  but  in  each  case  an  inquiry 
must  first  be  undertaken  by  some  officer  of  the  depart- 
ment, and  at  this  inquiry  the  application  may  be  opposed 
by  any  one  interested.  If  the  request  for  a  provisional 
order  be  refused,  the  borough  may  try  to  secure  the 
desired  authority  by  means  of  a  private  bill ;  if  it  be 
granted,  the  authority  conferred  upon  the  municipality 
becomes  practically  effective  at  once,  even  though  the  order 
must  eventually  be  confirmed  by  Parliament.  As  a  mat- 
ter of  practice,  large  numbers  of  these  provisional  orders 
are  commonly  embodied  in  a  single  confirmation  bill  and 
provided  with  parliamentary  sanction  together.  Parlia- 
ment may,  of  course,  refuse  approval.  It  occasionally  hap- 
pens, too,  that  members  of  one  or  other  of  the  Houses  may 
oppose  an  individual  order  contained  in  one  of  the  bills  ; 
but  such  opposition  is  rarely  of  any  avail.  The  method  of 
acquiring  special  borough  powers  by  means  of  provisional 
orders  has  grown  in  favor  during  the  last  two  decades  ; 
for  the  plan,  involving  as  it  does  a  skilled  administrative 
inquiry  into  the  merits  of  an  application  rather  than  a 
duel  of  paid  agents  before  a  committee  of  parliamen- 
tarians, is  more  speedy,  less  costly,  and  in  almost  every  other 
way  more  satisfactory  than  the  procedure  by  private  bill. 

From  the  foregoing  summary  one  may  obtain  some  idea 
of  the  variety  of  sources  from  which  the  English  borough 
draws  its  corporate  powers,  and  may  understand  how  diffi- 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  269 

cult  it  is  to  speak  broadly  of  the  "powers  of  English 
municipal  councils."  Besides  the  considerable  range  of 
common-law  jurisdiction  and  the  many  statutory  powers 
of  a  mandatory  nature  possessed  by  all  borough  councils 
alike,  there  is  also  the  wide  scope  of  authority  conferred 
by  general  statutes  in  adoptive  form,  though  whether 
or  not  this  authority  has  been  formally  "  adopted  "  by  a 
borough  one  must  learn  in  each  case.  Then  there  is  the 
multitude  of  private  acts  which  have  given  special  powers 
to  particular  municipalities,  and  the  still  larger  host  of 
provisional  orders,  either  confirmed  or  pending  confirma- 
tion, which  have  done  the  same.  If  one  wishes,  therefore, 
to  know  the  exact  powers  of  the  borough  council  of  Liver- 
pool or  Birmingham  or  Manchester,  one  must  explore  all 
five  sources,  —  a  task  so  great  as  to  preclude  all  but  the 
legal  experts  of  the  municipality  from  really  knowing 
what  powers  the  council  possesses  at  any  given  time.  The 
ordinary  citizen  knows  those  powers  only  in  a  very  general 
way. 

This  lack  of  uniformity  in  municipal  powers  is  of  course  Merits  and 
very  confusing  to  the  student  of  local  government ;  and 
yet  the  English  system  of  granting  different  privileges  to 
different  boroughs  has  much  in  its  favor.  Since  the  con-  locaipowers. 
ditions  and  needs  of  a  municipality  vary  with  its 
size  and  situation,  they  cannot  be  so  adequately  provided 
for  by  general  enactments  as  by  specific  laws  and  orders, 
a  fact  which  the  English  practice  recognizes  by  permitting 
the  adaptation  of  local  powers  to  local  problems  with  a 
degree  of  precision  unknown  to  the  legislative  systems  of 
other  states.  It  allows  Parliament  to  give  to  certain 
boroughs  privileges  which,  rather  than  give  them  to  all 
municipalities,  it  would  probably  give  to  none.  It  permits 
every  application  for  added  local  powers  to  be  dealt  with 
on  its  own  merits  ;  for,  though  following  general  rules  to 


270  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

some  extent,  Parliament  has  been  disposed  to  act  on  the 
principle  that  a  borough  itself  knows  best  what  it  wants 
in  the  way  of  legislation,  and  that  it  should  get  exactly 
what  it  asks  for  unless  good  reason  for  refusal  can  be  shown. 
One  might  almost  say  that  with  the  growth  in  importance 
of  the  system  of  giving  authority  by  provisional  orders, 
the  adaptation  of  borough  powers  to  local  conditions  has 
become  about  as  effective  as  it  can  possibly  be  made.  In 
this  respect  the  English  situation  has  come  to  differentiate 
itself  sharply  from  the  condition  of  affairs  which  exists  in 
many  of  the  American  states,  where  constitutional  pro- 
visions absolutely  prohibit  the  giving  to  one  city  of  any 
privilege  which  is  not  accorded  to  all. 

variety  and  Although  the  English  system  of  granting  local  powers 
powers°en-  leaves  room  for  a  wide  departure  from  uniformity  in 
joyed  by  borough  jurisdiction,  as  a  matter  of  fact  the  variation  is 

boroughs. 

not  so  great  as  might  be  expected ;  and  it  remains  entirely 
possible  to  summarize  in  general  terms  and  with  reasonable 
accuracy  the  powers  which  usually  appertain  to  the 
borough  council  as  the  sole  governing  organ  of  the  munici- 
pality, due  allowance  being  made,  of  course,  for  important 
differences  here  and  there.  In  dealing  with  this  topic, 
however,  it  appears  advisable  to  repeat  at  the  outset  that 
the  English  council  is  both  the  chief  executive  and  the  sole 
legislative  organ  of  the  municipality,  and  that  in  English 
municipal  government  there  is  no  recognition  of  the  prin- 
ciple of  "  division  of  powers  "  which  has  been  so  scrupu- 
lously respected  in  American  city  administration.  The 
English  system  does  not  seek  to  embody  any  arrangement 
of  checks  and  balances ;  on  the  contrary,  it  concentrates 
all  local  authority  and  responsibility,  legislative  as  well 
as  administrative,  in  the  hands  of  a  single  organ,  and  that 
organ  is  the  council. 

As  the  legislative  authority  of  the  borough,  the  council 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  271 

has  power  to  make  by-laws  or  local  ordinances  for  the  Legislative 
protection  of  the  public  health,  for  the  security  of  life  and 
property,  for  the  regulation  of  traffic  in  the  streets,  for  the 
abatement  of  nuisances,  and  for  promoting  in  various  other 
ways  the  well-being  of  the  citizens,  provided  always  that 
such  ordinances  are  not  repugnant  to  the  general  laws  of 
the  land.1  These  by-laws  are  usually  drafted,  at  the  re- 
quest of  the  council  or  of  one  of  its  members,  by  the  town 
clerk ;  they  are  introduced  by  some  individual  councillor 
or  alderman,  and  must  be  submitted  to  the  three  regular 
readings  required  by  the  Standing  Orders  of  the  council. 
If  the  projected  by\^,w  is  of  any  importance,  it  is  usually 
considered  by  a  committee  of  the  whole  council  before  it 
goes  to  its  third  and  final  reading.  It  may  be  passed  by 
a  simple  majority  of  votes  in  the  council ;  and,  as  a  rule,  it 
becomes  effective  at  once,  for  the  mayor  of  an  English 
borough  has  no  veto  power,  either  absolute  or  qualified. 
In  the  case  of  by-laws  relating  to  the  protection  of  the 
public  health  and  a  few  other  matters,  however,  the  action 
of  the  council  may  be  overridden  by  the  Local  Government 
Board  ;  indeed,  the  power  of  disallowance  possessed  by  the 
different  government  departments  in  relation  to  municipal 
by-laws  has  grown  considerably  in  recent  years.  Never- 
theless, over  a  wide  range  of  local  matters  the  borough 
councils  still  have  almost  entire  freedom  of  action. 

Next  in  importance  to  the  council's  legislative  authority  Financial 
are  its  powers  connected  with  the  financial  affairs  of  the  p 
borough.     The  council  is  the  custodian  of  the  "borough 
fund,"  which  is  the  term  used  .to  include  proceeds  from 
property  owned  by  the  municipality,  payments  for  public 

1  The  scope  of  the  council's  powers  in  these  various  fields  of  local  adminis- 
tration is  dealt  with  at  length  in  W.  C.  Glen's  Laws  of  Public  Health  (12th  ed., 
London,  1899),  and  in  F.  N.  Keen's  Urban  Police  and  Sanitary  Legislation 
(London,  1904). 


272  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

franchises,  profits  of  civic  enterprises,  together  with  fines, 
fees,  and  other  incidental  revenues.  The  English  borough, 
it  may  be  explained,  is  sometimes  an  extensive  holder  of 
real  property,  much  of  which  it  leases  for  long  terms  to 
private  parties,  and  from  which  it  frequently  derives  a 
large  annual  income.1  Over  the  proceeds  accruing  from 
the  use  of  this  property  the  power  of  the  council  is  com- 
plete, but  its  jurisdiction  in  regard  to  the  selling,  mortgag- 
ing, or  leasing  of  the  lands  is  restricted  by  the  municipal 
code  and  other  legislation.2  Save  in  exceptional  cases,  for 
example,  the  council  can  grant  no  lease  of  municipal  prop- 
erty for  a  period  exceeding  thirty-one  years  without  the 
The  "bor-  permission  of  the  Local  Government  Board.  In  addition 
to  the  revenues  annually  derived  from  municipal  property, 
the  "  borough  fund  "  is  considerably  augmented,  in  a  large 
municipality,  by  the  receipts  from  holders  of  public 
franchises  (such  as  water,  lighting,  or  tramway  companies) 
or  by  the  profits  of  direct  municipal  operation  of  these 
services.3  Many  of  the  boroughs,  moreover,  obtain  sub- 
stantial yearly  additions  to  their  funds  from  market  tolls, 
port  dues,  and  similar  sources.  In  1905  the  borough  of 
Birkenhead  received  more  than  130,000  from  the  operation 
of  its  ferries  alone,  a  sum  which  more  than  covered  its 
total  expenditures  for  sewerage  and  fire  protection.4 

Under  the  authority  and  at  the  discretion  of  the  council, 

1  The  city  of  Bristol,  for  example,  receives  about  $125,000  per  annum  in 
rentals  of  leased  property ;  and  the  borough  of  Doncaster,  with  a  population 
of  less  than  30,000,  receives  about  the  same  amount.     See  Municipal  Year  Book 
of  the  United  Kingdom,  1906,  pp.  78,  105. 

2  For  the  detailed  restrictions,  see  "The  Acquisition,  Sale,  and  Letting  of 
Land  by  Local  Authorities"  in  the  Encyclopaedia  of  Local  Government  Law, 
I.  114-155. 

8  Elaborate  statistics  relating  to  borough  income  from  public  services  are 
compiled  in  the  National  Civic  Federation's  Report  on  Public  Ownership  and 
Operation,  especially  Part  II.  Vol.  II.  passim. 

*  Municipal  Tear  Book  of  the  United  Kingdom,  1906,  p.  62. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  273 

the  borough  fund  is,  so  far  as  it  goes,  applied  to  the  pay- 
ment of  annual  municipal  expenditures.  If  it  suffices  to  The  levying 
pay  these  expenses,  no  borough  rates  or  annual  taxes  are  °*  L 
levied ;  but,  since  it  is  rarely  found  to  be  adequate,  the  taxes- 
council  almost  invariably  has  to  levy  a  "rate"  of  so  many 
shillings  or  pence  per  pound  upon  the  rental  value  of  all 
real  property  within  the  municipality.  This  rental  value 
is  obtained  by  estimating  the  amount  of  clear  annual  rent 
which  any  parcel  of  real  estate  yields  to  its  owner  ;  but 
the  rate  is  levied  upon  the  tenant,  not  upon  the  landlord, 
unless  it  happens  that  the  latter  is  tenant  as  well.  Un- 
occupied real  property  is  thus  not  "rated"  at  all.  The 
assessment  of  rateable  values  may  be  made  for  the  coun- 
cil by  its  own  assessors  ;  but  this  procedure  is  rarely  fol- 
lowed. As  a  rule,  the  council  accepts  the  valuations  that 
have  already  been  fixed  by  the  "  overseers  of  the  poor," 
officials  who  are  required  by  the  terms  of  the  national 
Poor  Law  to  assess  rental  values  as  a  basis  for  the  annual 
levy  of  a  special  "  poor  rate,"  which  is  determined  and 
the  proceeds  of  which  are  disbursed  by  a  special  local 
authority,  the  "  guardians  of  the  poor."  Accepting  the 
figures  of  the  overseers,  the  council,  after  it  has  estimated 
the  municipal  expenditure  for  the  ensuing  year,  and  has 
likewise  reckoned  the  amount  of  income  which  will  be 
derived  from  sources  other  than  taxation,  proceeds  to  fix 
its  "  borough  rate,"  in  determining  which  it  has  entire 
discretion.1 

In  most  English  boroughs  the  proceeds  of  the  borough 
rate  form  the  chief  source  of  municipal  revenue.  In  some 
cases,  as  has  been  pointed  out,  the  borough  fund  is  of 

1  For  a  discussion  of  the  law  and  practice  of  borough  rating,  see  the  First 
Report  of  the  Royal  Commission  on  Local  Taxation  (1899)  ;  W.  C.  Ryde's 
Law  and  Practice  of  Bating  (London,  1904)  ;  E.  M.  Konstam's  Rates  and 
Taxes  (London,  1906)  ;  and  the  same  writer's  "  Rates  and  Rating "  in  the 
Encyclopaedia  of  Local  Government  Law,  V.  311-468. 


274  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

high  importance ;  but  it  very  rarely  exceeds  the  in- 
come from  rates.1  English  cities,  like  American,  obtain 
most  of  their  revenues  by  levying  direct  taxes  upon  real 
property.  They  have  also,  of  course,  their  share,  and  in 
some  cases  a  very  important  one,  of  the  large  sums  which 
the  English  national  government  distributes  each  year 
among  the  local  authorities ;  but  in  the  determination  of 
this  branch  of  local  income  the  councils  obviously  have  no 
jurisdiction. 

Thecoun-  Besides    being    the     receiving    agent    of     the    munici- 

ofexpen-™  Pality,  the  borough  council  is  also  its  appropriating  or- 
ditures.  gan .  fOT  ft  determines,  practically  without  interference 
from  any  outside  authority,  the  annual  expenditures  of 
the  borough.  Early  in  every  calendar  year  it  is  the  duty 
of  each  of  the  council's  various  committees  to  determine 
the  amount  that  will  be  needed  to  carry  on  the  work  of 
the  department  over  which  it  has  supervision.  This  es- 
timate is  prepared  by  the  committee  in  consultation  with 
the  permanent  expert  officials  of  the  department,  the  basis 
of  computation  being  usually  the  expenditures  for  pre- 
Themu-  vious  years.  The  committees'  estimates  are  then  corn- 
budget,  monly  sent  to  the  finance  committee  of  the  council,  and 
by  it  are  collated  and  arranged  into  a  comprehensive 
municipal  budget,  which  its  chairman  lays  before  the 
council  at  a  regular  meeting.  The  items  in  this  budget 
are  next  taken  up  one  by  one  by  the  council  in  committee 
of  the  whole,  and  during  this  consideration  such  changes 
may  be  made  as  a  majority  of  the  councillors  agree  upon. 
Items  may  be  stricken  out,  increased,  diminished,  or  al- 
lowed to  stand,  the  council  being  particularly  free  from 
hesitation  in  paring  down  committee  estimates  which 
seem  to  be  too  high.  When  the  budget  has  been  finally 

1  Expenditures  under  the  Public  Health  Act  are  provided  for  in  the  General 
District  Rate. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  275 

agreed  upon  by  the  council,  each  committee  is  authorized 
to  expend  the  amount  credited  to  it  in  the  appropriations, 
a  task  which  it  forthwith  proceeds  to  do.  If  the  initial 
appropriations  prove  to  be  inadequate,  a  supplementary 
budget  is  presented  by  the  finance  committee  later  in  the 
year. 

As  compared  with  the  budget  procedure  in  the  cities  of  The  English 
France,  Prussia,  or  the  United  States,  the  English  system  budgetpro- 

J  cedure  corn- 

may  seem  to  afford  a  minimum  of  assurance  in  the  direc-  pared  with 

•tion  of  economy.  The  members  of  the  finance  committee  dties°mS° 
who  present  the  list  of  proposed  appropriations  to  the 
council,  are  in  no  way  responsible  for  the  items  contained 
in  it ;  indeed,  they  may  stanchly  oppose  the  adoption  of 
some  of  them.  Nor  for  changes  made  while  the  budget 
is  under  consideration  by  the  council  is  there  any  respon- 
sibility except  that  which  may  be  attached  to  a  shifting 
majority  of  the  councillors.  The  municipal  budget  does 
not,  as  in  Prussia,  require  the  concurrence  of  two  separate 
organs  of  administration ;  it  does  not,  as  in  France,  need 
the  approval  of  any  national  officer  or  board  of  officers ; 
nor  does  it,  as  in  the  United  States,  encounter  any  check 
in  the  way  of  a  mayoral  veto  authority.  It  goes  into 
effect  as  soon  as  it  passes  the  council  by  a  simple  ma- 
jority vote ;  and,  if  the  voter  regards  its  appropriations 
as  excessive,  his  only  remedy  is  to  record  his  vote,  at  the 
next  election,  against  those  councillors  from  his  own  ward 
who  may  have  helped  to  put  the  budget  through.  This 
redress  is  not  very  satisfactory,  however  ;  for  appropriations 
are  passed  by  the  council  as  a  whole,  and  the  councillors 
as  a  whole  do  not  come  before  the  voter  on  his  ballot. 
Decentralization  of  power  and  diffusion  of  responsibility 
are,  indeed,  the  most  outstanding  features  of  the  English 
system  of  municipal  appropriations. 

But  while  the  channels  through  which  the  council  exer- 


276  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

cises  its  powers  in  regard  to  municipal  expenditures  may 
seem,  on  their  face,  to  put  a  premium  on  extravagance,  and 
while  in  American  cities  a  similar  system,  generally  in 
vogue  a  half-century  ago,  did  actually  encourage  every 
councilman  to  raid  the  civic  treasury  for  the  a'dvantage  of 
his  own  ward  whenever  he  had  opportunity,  the  experience 
of  English  boroughs  seems  to  justify  the  existing  arrange- 
ments as  entirely  efficient  and  satisfactory  in  actual  opera- 
tion. English  municipal  administration  has  not  been 
conducted  in  wasteful  fashion  ;  on  the  contrary,  there  are 
few  English  boroughs  which  cannot  give  lessons  in  civic 
thrift  to  even  those  few  American  cities  that  profess  to  be 
bending  every  energy  in  the  direction  of  economy.  The 
situation  merely  adds  its  testimony  to  the  truth  of  the 
popular  feeling  that  the  personnel  of  the  appropriating 
authority,  and  not  the  procedure  under  which  the  appro- 
priations are  made,  is  the  vital  factor  in  determining  the 
financial  policy  of  any  municipality. 
The  local  A  third  financial  power  of  the  council  is  its  right  to  bor- 

row  on  the  credit  of  the  municipality.1  In  all  proposals  for 
incurring  civic  indebtedness  the  initiative  belongs  to  the 
council,  but  no  permanent  debt  may  be  incurred  without 
the  approval  of  the  central  authorities.  This  approval 
may  be,  and  often  is,  had  through  the  provisions  of  a 
general  or  a  private  act  of  Parliament ;  but  more  often  per- 
mission to  borrow  is  obtained  from  one  or  other  of  the 
various  government  departments.  For  borrowing  funds 
to  erect  public  buildings  the  approval  of  the  national 
Treasury  must  be  secured ;  for  raising  loans  to  provide 
for  sewer  construction,  the  erection  of  hospitals,  and  other 
works  which  the  boroughs  are  by  statute  compelled  to 

1  The  best  short  summary  of  borough  borrowing  powers  is  W.  J.  Jeeves's 
article  on  "Loans"  in  the  Encyclopaedia  of  Local  Government  Law,  IV.  187- 
245. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  277 

supply,  the  consent  of  the  Local  Government  Board  is  Central  su- 
required.  If  a  borough  proposes  to  municipalize  its  tram-  auToc-aT  Oi 
ways  and  to  get  the  necessary  capital  by  the  issue  of  mu-  loans> 
nicipal  bonds,  it  must  have  the  approval  both  of  the  fore- 
going board  and  of  the  Board  of  Trade.  In  no  case 
may  the  borough  council  authorize  borrowing  of  its  own 
sole  authority ;  it  must  always  have  the  countenance  of 
some  designated  national  officer  or  body.  This  approval, 
moreover,  is  given  or  withheld  on  the  merits  of  the  indi- 
vidual application ;  for  there  is  no  rigid  rule  as  to  the  pro- 
portion which  the  gross  debt  of  the  borough  may  bear  to 
the  municipality's  annual  income,  or  to  its  assessed  valua- 
tion, or  to  any  other  gauge  of  its  financial  resources.  In  a 
word,  English  cities,  unlike  those  of  the  United  States,  have 
no  fixed  "debt  limits."  A  borough  may  not  borrow  a 
single  shilling  as  a  permanent  charge  upon  the  municipality 
without  the  prior  consent  of  some  national  authority ;  but 
with  this  permission  it  may  incur  indebtedness  without  any 
legal  limit. 

In  granting  approval  to  projects  for  municipal  borrow-  strictness 

,.       of  this  super- 
ing,  the  central  authorities  carefully  circumscribe  the  dis-  vision. 

cretion  of  the  borough  councils  as  to  the  form  of  bonds  to 
be  issued,  the  rate  of  interest  to  be  paid,  and  the  provi- 
sions to  be  made  in  the  way  of  sinking  funds  or  other 
arrangements  for  the  repayment  of  the  loan  on  the  expiry 
of  the  term  for  which  it  was  contracted.  The  provisions 
in  regard  to  sinking  funds  are  usually  of  the  strictest  sort, 
—  a  reason,  it  may  be,  why  many  of  the  larger  boroughs 
prefer  to  obtain  their  borrowing  powers  by  applying  to 
Parliament  for  private  acts  rather  than  by  asking  the 
appropriate  boards  for  provisional  orders. 

Both  Parliament  and  the  government  boards  have  been 
so  liberal  in  approving  projects  of  municipal  borrowing 
that  during  the  last  few  decades  many  of  the  boroughs 


278 


GOVERNMENT  OF   EUROPEAN  CITIES 


Central  con- 
trol not 
wholly 
effective  in 
checking 
local  ex- 
travagance. 


Administra- 
tive powers 
of  the  coun- 
cil. 


have  increased  their  funded  indebtedness  at  a  rapid  rate, 
much  more  rapidly,  indeed,  than  they  have  increased 
their  population  or  the  value  of  their  rateable  property. 
This  development  has  created  some  misgivings  in  various 
quarters,  and  in  many  of  the  boroughs  it  has  resulted  in  a 
marked  increase  in  the  annual  tax  rate ;  but  the  national 
government,  far  from  giving  any  sign  of  subjecting  the 
councils  to  a  tighter  rein  in  the  matter,  has  for  many 
years  actually  loaned  funds  to  the  municipalities,  and  this 
policy  it  still  continues  to  pursue.  All  this  is  not  meant 
to  imply  that  the  borough  councils  have  been  reckless  in 
their  applications  for  power  to  borrow,  or  that  funds 
obtained  by  the  issue  of  borough  bonds  have  not,  in  the 
great  majority  of  cases,  been  really  needed  for  advancing 
the  material  interests  of  the  municipalities.  On  the  con- 
trary, a  large  part  of  the  total  borough  debt  of  England 
is  offset  by  the  civic  ownership  of  productive  enterprises 
—  gas  plants,  water  services,  tramways,  workingmen's 
dwellings,  and  so  forth  —  which  yield  good  returns  upon 
the  moneys  invested.  Notwithstanding  these  advantages, 
however,  it  is  evident  that  the  necessity  of  having  the 
central  authorities  pass  upon  every  loan  project  does  not 
of  itself  serve  to  prevent  a  rapid  expansion  of  local  liabil- 
ities, or  to  afford  any  adequate  protection  against  the 
usual  consequence  —  an  increase  in  local  taxes. 

Important  as  are  the  legislative  and  financial  powers  of 
the  council,  they  are  fully  matched  in  scope  and  in  sig- 
nificance by  its  administrative  jurisdiction,  which,  with 
only  two  exceptions,  covers  everything  that  may  properly 
be  regarded  as  a  branch  of  municipal  activity,  and  is  ex- 
ercised by  the  council  directly  and  entirely,  without 
participation  by  any  other  local  authority  whatsoever. 
One  of  the  two  exceptions  to  this  rule  relates  to  the  dis- 
pensation of  public  charity,  a  matter  which  by  the  act 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  279 

of  1834  and  amending  statutes  is  put  in  charge  of  local 

boards    of    guardians    elected    for   the    poor-law    unions.1 

Every  large  borough  forms  at  least  one  of  these  unions, 

and  some  of  the  largest  form  two  or  three  ;  hence  borough 

and  union  boundaries  do  not  always  coincide.     A  special  Council  does 

poor  rate  is  levied  in  each  union,  the  amount  being  fixed 


by  the  Board  of  Guardians  and  the  levy  being  made  upon  of  ?oor 
rateable  values  assessed  by  officials  known  as  overseers  of 
the  poor.  The  custody  and  disbursement  of  the  funds 
thus  raised  lie  with  the  guardians,  who  have  full  charge  of 
both  in-door  and  out-door  relief,  including  the  administra- 
tion of  workhouses  and  other  local  institutions  of  public 
charity.2 

The  other  exception  to  the  council's  absolute  power  of  Does  not 
administration  has  to  do  with  the  granting  of  licenses  for 
the  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors.  Those  who  framed  the 
Municipal  Corporations  Act  of  1835  proposed  to  intrust 
this  authority  to  the  council  ;  but  the  objections  in  the 
House  of  Lords  were  so  strongly  urged  that  the  provision 
was  finally  eliminated  and  this  branch  of  local  jurisdiction 
was  left  with  the  justices  of  the  peace.  At  the  present 
time  applications  for  licenses  are  made  to  the  justices 
of  the  administrative  county  in  which  the  borough  is  situ- 
ated, and  are  granted  or  denied  by  them  on  a  majority  vote 
in  special  session  ;  but  the  enforcement  of  all  regulations 
governing  the  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors  is  in  the  hands 

1  4-5  William  IV.  c.  76.    The  provisions  of  the  Unemployed  Workmen  Act 
are,  however,  in  municipalities  of  over  50,000,  administered  by  the  council. 

2  A  short  but  comprehensive  survey  of  local  poor-relief  administration  may 
be  found  in  Redlich  and  Hirst's  Local  Government  in  England,  II.  203-223. 
For  further  information,  see  T.  W.  Fowle's  Poor  Law  (2ded.,  London,  1893), 
P.  F.  Aschrott's  The  English  Poor-Law  System  (London,  1902),  S.  Lonsdale'a 
English  Poor  Laws  (London,  1897),  and  the  Fabian  Society  Tracts,  Nos.  44 
and  54.     The  annual  reports  of  the  Local  Government  Board  contain  a  great 
deal  of  material,  and  so  do  the  general  orders  issued  by  this  body  and  collected 
in  W.  C.  Glen's  Poor-Law  Orders  (llth  ed.,  London,  1898). 


280  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

of  the  local  police,  who  are  under  the  supervision  of   a 
committee  of  the  council. 

Until  1902  local  education  was  another  department  over 
which  the  council  had  no  jurisdiction  ;  but  by  the  Educa- 
tion Act  of  that  year  the  administrative  authority  hitherto 
exercised  by  the  elective  school  board  of  the  borough  was 
transferred  to  the  council,1  and  is  now  exerted  by  one  of 
its  committees,  the  members  of  which  may  be  taken 
wholly  from  within  the  ranks  of  the  councillors  or  in  part 
from  outside. 
Wide  scope  With  respect  to  two  important  local  matters,  therefore, 

of  the  coun-  -,.    £         -.  •,.  .  ,-1  -i   i  •     •>• 

cii's  admin-  —  poor  relief  and  licensing,  —  the  council  has  no  junsdic- 


istrative  ^on  .  ^f.  -n  a^  other  departments  of  municipal  activity 
it  is  the  sole  directing  organ.  It  has  charge  of  all  matters 
relating  to  the  building  and  maintenance  of  streets,  pave- 
ments, parks,  and  public  buildings.  As  the  local  sanitary 
authority,  it  is  charged  with  the  administration  of  the 
Public  Health  Act  and  other  mandatory  legislation  relat- 
ing to  the  construction  of  sewers,  the  maintenance  of  isola- 
tion hospitals,  and  so  on.  It  is  intrusted  with  the  task  of 
providing,  either  directly  or  through  an  enfranchised 
company,  a  system  of  water  supply.  By  a  series  of 
adoptive  acts  of  Parliament  it  has  been  invested  with 
wide  powers  in  respect  to  the  establishment  and  control 
of  lighting  and  tramway  services,  utilities  which  it 
may,  subject  to  the  approval  of  the  appropriate  govern- 
ment departments,2  provide  either  directly  or  through 
grants  of  franchises  to  private  entrepreneurs,  in  the 
former  case  the  council  directly  controlling  all  matters 
relating  to  the  service  and  carrying  on  the  work  of 

1  2  Edward  VII.  c.  42.     Control  of  elementary  education  in  boroughs  of  less 
than  10,000  was  not  transferred.     See  Graham  Balfour's  Educational  Systems 
of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland  (2d  ed.,  London,  1904). 

2  See  below,  pp.  330-332. 


THE   GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  281 

detailed  administration  through  its  own  committees.1 
The  borough  council  has  further  been  empowered  to  other  public 
embark  upon  schemes  for  the  better  housing  of  the  B 
working  classes,  and  to  provide  public  baths  and  wash- 
houses,  not  to  speak  of  museums,  art  galleries,  and  places 
of  recreation,  markets,  cemeteries,  ferries  over  rivers, 
and  a  multitude  of  minor  public  utilities.2  Having  pro- 
vided all  these  services,  it  must  also  regulate  them,  and 
provide  also  police  and  fire  protection,  two  important 
municipal  departments  over  which  it  has  entire  control. 
In  short,  the  council  is  (with  the  two  exceptions  above  Preemi- 
noted)  the  sole  local  authority  exercising  administrative 
powers  within  the  limits  of  the  borough ;  hence,  to  name 
its  powers  is  merely  to  name  the  powers  which  may  be 
exercised  by  the  borough  as  a  public  corporation.  There 
has  in  England  been  no  apportionment  of  administrative 
jurisdiction  among  independent  boards  or  commissions 
such  as  one  commonly  finds  in  the  cities  of  the  United 
States ;  and  there  has,  furthermore,  been  little  or  no 
assumption  of  municipal  functions  by  authorities  who 
owe  their  appointment  to  the  state.  The  work  of  the 
central  authorities,  as  will  be  seen  more  clearly  later  on, 
is  that  of  supervision  only ;  it  is  never  that  of  direct 
adminstration  of  civic  departments.  To  the  American 
student,  indeed,  the  dominating  place  of  the  council  in 
the  affairs  of  the  borough  is  perhaps  the  most  salient 
feature  of  the  English  municipal  system.3 

Notwithstanding  the  full  and  undivided    control    exer- 

1  Much  data  concerning  the  manner  in  which  this  administration  by  council 
committees  is  carried  on  may  be  found  in  the  Report  of  the  Select  Committee 
on  Municipal  Trading  (1903)  ;  and  in  the  National  Civic  Federation,  Report  on 
Public  Ownership  and  Operation,  Ft.  II.  Vol.  II. 

2  The  scope  and  limitations  of  these  powers  may  be  found,  in  summarized 
form,  in  Lauder's  Municipal  Manual. 

«  Cf.  Frederick  Howe,  The  British  City  (New  York,  1907),  especially  ch.  ii 
("The  Town  Council"). 


282 


GOVERNMENT   OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


The  coun- 
cil's commit- 
tees. 


"  Standing  " 
committees. 


"Special" 
committees. 


Sub-commit- 
tees. 


cised  by  the  council  over  the  various  civic  departments, 
it  is  obvious  that  so  large  an  assembly  cannot  well  attend 
directly  to  the  host  of  administrative  details  which  in 
every  great  city  must  receive  attention  from  some  official 
organ.  Most  of  these  duties  the  council  therefore  thrusts 
upon  its  standing  committees,  of  which  in  every  large  city 
there  are  a  good  many,  usually  selected  by  the  borough 
council  at  its  November  session  in  each  year.  The  na- 
tional laws  require  that  every  borough  council  shall  have 
at  least  two  committees  —  the  watch  committee  and  the 
education  committee,  which  are  known  as  "statutory 
committees  " ; l  but  it  may  have  as  many  others  as  seem 
desirable,  and  a  large  borough  usually  has  a  dozen  or 
more.  Some  of  them,  known  as  "  standing  committees," 
retain  their  organization  throughout  the  year,  dealing 
with  all  matters  that  arise  from  time  to  time  within  their 
allotted  spheres  of  jurisdiction.  Liverpool,  for  example,  has 
fourteen  standing  committees,2  Birmingham  eighteen,3  and 
York  twelve.4  Other  committees,  commonly  known  as  "  spe- 
cial "  ones,  are  organized  as  occasion  may  require,  and  are 
assigned  such  duties  as  the  council  may  determine,  notably 
the  promoting  of  private  bills  before  Parliament.  The 
standing  committees  have  regular  meetings,  but  the  special 
ones  convene  only  when  necessity  arises.  Most  of  the  stand- 
ing committees  each  have  one  or  more  sub-committees,  to 
which  they  depute  some  of  the  routine  work  which  they 
would  otherwise  have  to  perform  themselves.  These  sub- 
committees report,  of  course,  to  the  main  committee,  and 
not  directly  to  the  whole  council.  Every  councillor  and 
alderman  finds  himself  appointed  to  at  least  one  of  the 

1  The  former  is  rendered  obligatory  by  the  Municipal  Corporations  Act  of 
1882,  the  latter  by  the  Education  Act  of  1902. 

3  City  of  Liverpool,  Municipal  Year  Book,  1900,  pp.  70-95. 
8  City  of  Birmingham,  Municipal  Diary,  1905-1906,  pp.  18-45. 
*  City  of  York,  Year  Book,  1905-1906,  pp.  33-40. 


com- 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  283 

foregoing  committees  ;  some  serve  on  two  or  three  ;  and  by 
custom  the  mayor  is  ex  officio  a  member  of  them  all,  though 
he  rarely  takes  any  active  part  in  their  deliberations.     In 
addition  the  council  annually  delegates  some  of  its  members 
to  sit  as  representatives  of  the  borough  upon  joint  commit- 
tees with  members  of   the  county  council.      These  joint  joint 
committees  are  intrusted  with  the  supervision  of  enterprises  mittees- 
that  are  of  common  interest  to  county  and  borough  alike, — 
such,  for  instance,  as   the   protection    of    riverways  from 
obstruction  and  pollution.1     Finally,  the  council,  in  order  "Committee 
to  facilitate  its  business,  frequently  resolves  itself  into  a  °V^e» 

wnoic. 

"  committee  of  the  whole,"  a  form  of  organization  which 
it  uniformly  adopts  when  it  has  the  local  budget  under 
consideration  item  by  item. 

In  the  selection  of  its  committees  the  English  municipal  Methods  of 
council  pursues  methods  very  different  from  those  com-  committee^ 
mon  in  the  cities  of  the  United  States.  In  America,  as 
is  well  known,  the  naming  of  committees,  whether  in  na- 
tional, state,  or  municipal  legislatures,  is  almost  invariably 
the  prerogative  of  the  presiding  officer ;  in  England  this 
privilege  is  jealously  reserved  by  the  council  itself.  It  is  The  "com- 
the  custom  of  the  English  council  to  appoint  at  its  No- 
vember  session  a  "  committee  of  selection,"  which  reports 
to  the  council  a  "  slate  "  of  standing  and  special  commit- 
tees for  the  year.  These  lists  may,  when  laid  before  the 
council,  be  changed  at  pleasure  by  a  simple  majority  vote 
of  that  body ;  but  as  a  rule  no  important  alterations  are 
made.  Of  course,  if  a  member  asks  to  be  relieved  from 
service  on  a  certain  committee,  or  to  be  transferred  from 
one  committee  to  another,  his  request  is  usually  granted. 

The  committee  of  selection  is  almost  certain  to  be  com- 

1  Much  serviceable  information  concerning  the  inner  organization  of  the 
councils  may  be  found  in  the  Minutes  of  Evidence  container!  in  the  Report  of  the 
Royal  Commission  on  the  Amalgamation  of  London  (1894)  ;  see  also  Bedlich 
and  Hirst,  Local  Government  in  England,  II.  ch.  vi. 


284  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

its  composi-  posed,  for  the  most  part,  of  members  who  owe  allegiance 
to  the  same  political  party  as  the  majority  of  the  council  ; 
likewise  this  committee  may  ordinarily  be  trusted  to  see 
that  a  majority  of  the  members  of  each  important  stand- 
ing committee  belong  to  the  dominant  political  party.  It 
would  be  idle  as  well  as  misleading  to  give  the  impression 
that  in  the  selection  of  its  committees  the  English  borough 
council  considers  nothing  but  the  efficiency  of  its  mem- 
bers in  relation  to  the  work  to  be  performed.  Not  in- 

influences  frequently,  indeed,  the  slate  of  committees  is  drawn  up  at 
a  caucus  of  those  councillors  and  aldermen  who  represent 


construction  ^he  majority  party,  and  the  report  of  the  committee  of 

of  commit- 

tees. selection  thus  becomes  a  mere  formality.     The  charge  has 

been  made  that  in  the  larger  boroughs  councillors  who  are 
directly  or  indirectly  interested  in  the  liquor  traffic  some- 
times manoeuvre  to  obtain  places  upon  the  watch  commit- 
tee in  order  that  they  may  thereby  influence  the  police 
administration  to  the  advantage  of  their  friends,  an  object 
in  which  they  are  now  and  then  successful.  In  fact,  any 
one  who  is  at  all  familiar  with  the  actual  on-goings  in 
connection  with  the  selection  of  committees  knows  very 
well  that  in  England,  as  elsewhere,  partisan  and  personal 
motives  have  a  place,  and  sometimes  a  very  important  one, 
in  the  apportionment  of  committeeships  among  members 
of  the  municipal  council.  This  is  not  to  say,  however, 
that  such  considerations  are  the  only  ones  which  weigh, 
or  indeed  that  they  outweigh  more  wholesome  motives. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  is  very  rarely  that  committees  are 
Permanence  reconstructed  bodily.  On  the  contrary,  most  of  the  mem- 
teeCmember-  ^ers  no^  over  from  one  year  to  another,1  some  coun- 
ships.  cillors  serving  on  the  same  committee  for  a  dozen  years 

1  The  National  Civic  Federation  Commission  found  one  councillor  who  had 
been  on  the  gas  committee  in  Birmingham  for  twenty-eight  years.  Other  mem- 
bers of  the  same  committee  had  served  for  sixteen,  fifteen,  thirteen,  and  ten 
years  respectively.  See  Eeport  of  the  Commission  on  Public  Ownership  and 
Operation,  Pt.  I.  Vol.  I.  52. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  285 

or  more.  An  alderman  or  a  councillor  who  shows  an 
interest  in  the  work  of  his  committee  and  develops  any 
degree  of  familiarity  with  the  affairs  under  its  supervision 
is  reasonably  sure  to  be  left  on  it  as  long  as  he  remains  a 
member  of  the  council,  unless  he  should  personally  request  a 
change.  Party  or  personal  opposition  is  not  usually  brought 
to  bear  in  order  to  remove  a  member  who  has  shown  in- 
terest and  energy  in  his  work.  Hence  it  is  that  the  more 
important  standing  committees  are  quasi-permanent  in  com- 
position, a  circumstance  which  permits  them  to  attain  a 
high  grade  of  efficiency  in  the  despatch  of  business. 

The  number  of  members  assigned  to  the  standing  com-  Size  of  com- 
mittees shows  marked  variation,  in  the  larger  boroughs 
important  committees  sometimes  including  as  many  as 
twenty  aldermen  and  councillors,  and  rarely  fewer  than 
eight  or  ten.  The  number  is  in  each  case  fixed  by  the 
standing  rules  of  the  council,  whose  discretion  in  the 
matter  is  subject  to  no  statutory  limitation  except  the 
provision  in  the  municipal  code  that  the  watch  committee 
shall  not  include  more  than  one-third  of  the  council's  entire 
membership.1  A  committee  usually  includes  both  alder- 
men and  councillors,  and  neither  by  law  nor  by  custom  is 
any  fixed  proportion  maintained  between  the  two  classes 
of  members  ;  but,  since  the  councillors  are  thrice  as  numer- 
ous as  the  aldermen  in  the  council  as  a  whole,  it  naturally 
follows  that  they  are,  as  a  rule,  in  the  majority  on  all 
committees.  This  fact  is,  however,  of  little  or  no  signifi- 
cance ;  for  the  powers  of  all  committeemen,  whether  alder- 
men or  councillors,  are  exactly  the  same. 

Each  standing  and  each  special  committee  has  its  own  Thechair- 

,  ,  ...         men  of  com- 

chairman,  who  is  almost  always  chosen  by  the  committee  mittees. 
at  its  first  meeting  in  the  new  fiscal  year.     In  the  selec- 
tion of  a  chairman  considerable  care  is  taken  by  the  com- 

1  Municipal  Corporations  Act,  §  190. 


286 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


mittee,  and  partisan  or  personal  considerations  exert  very 
little  influence.  In  theory  any  member  of  the  committee 
may  be  appointed  to  the  post ;  but  in  practice  the  choice 
is  almost  always  made  from  among  those  members  who 
have  had  long  service  on  the  committee.  In  a  few 
boroughs  the  Standing  Orders  of  the  council  make  pro- 
vision that  no  chairman  shall  continue  in  his  position  for 
more  than  two  successive  years  ;  but  limitations  of  this  sort 
are  not  at  all  common.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  the  custom 
in  most  of  the  large  boroughs  to  keep  chairmen  in  office  as 
long  as  they  will  stay  there  ;  and  pressure  is  sometimes  put 
upon  them  to  retain  their  posts  when  they  would  gladly  free 
themselves  from  the  considerable  responsibilities  which  the 
tenure  frequently  imposes.  It  often  happens,  therefore, 
that  the  chairmanship  of  a  committee  is  held  by  the  same 
person  for  a  dozen  years  or  more.1  The  chairman  of  a 
council  committee  presides  at  its  meetings,  calls  special 
sessions  when  they  appear  desirable,  and  is  the  regular 
medium  of  communication  between  the  committee  and 
the  council  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  committee  and  the 
municipal  employees  on  the  other. 

No  feature  of  English  municipal  administration  has 
received  more  meagre  attention  at  the  hands  of  foreign 
nicfaf  mU~  students  than  the  work  of  the  standing  committees ;  yet 
none  is  so  deserving  of  careful  study,  for  none  has  contrib- 
uted so  effectually  to  the  smoothness  and  precision  with 
which  the  task  of  actual  administration  is  performed. 
Strictly  speaking,  no  standing  or  special  committee  (except 
the  statutory  watch  committee2)  has  any  final  powers 
whatsoever ;  its  decision  upon  every  matter,  great  or  small, 
requires  the  approval  or  ratification  of  the  council.  The 

1  Lowell,  The  Government  of  England,  II.  167. 

8  As  this  committee  has  been  given  definite  jurisdiction  and  functions  by  the 
Municipal  Corporations  Act  (§§  190-200),  its  proceedings  are  not  open  to  review 
by  the  council. 


Importance 
of  com- 
mittees in 


administra- 
tion. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  287 

influence  of  the  committees  upon    the  course  of    routine 
administration  arises  simply  from  the  fact  that,  when  a 
committee  considers  any  matter    within    its    sphere    and 
reports  its  recommendation  to  the  council,  this  recommen- 
dation almost  invariably  meets  with  acceptance.1     Not  that 
the  council  is  under  any  definite  obligation  to  adopt  the  re- 
port of  a  committee,  or  that  its  approval  of  recommen- 
dations has  become  a  mere  formality.     On  the  contrary,  the  Snbordina- 
borough  councils  frequently  refer  matters  back  to  commit-  Swe^s  to™" 
tees  with  instructions  that  they  reconsider  their  sugges-  t*16™110* 

*  the  council. 

tions;  and  it  occasionally  happens  that  the  council 
amends  a  committee's  report  without  even  the  courtesy 
of  referring  it  back.  It  is  not  easy  to  make  any  accurate 
assertion  as  to  the  extent  to  which  the  borough  councils 
disregard,  either  in  whole  or  in  part,  the  advice  of  their 
committees ;  but  "a  cursory  examination  of  local  news- 
paper reports  of  the  meetings  of  fifty-three  borough  and 
district  councils,  large  and  small,  taken  a  few  years  ago, 
would  seem  to  show  that  on  an  average  there  were  in  a 
council  not  more  than  three  cases  a  year  where  anything 
in  the  reports  of  committees,  of  sufficient  importance  to 
attract  the  attention  of  the  press,  was  amended  or  referred 
back."  2  Traditions  on  this  point  vary,  of  course,  in  the  The  council 
different  cities,  some  councils  handling  their  committees 
more  considerately  than  others ;  but  it  may  in  general 
be  said  without  any  hesitation  that  in  the  vast  majority  mittees. 
of  matters  that  come  before  a  committee  its  decision 
is  practically  final.  So  far,  indeed,  do  the  committees 
act  upon  this  assumption  that  they  actually  put  many  of 
their  decisions  into  operation  before  reporting  them  to  the 

1  The  Standing  Orders  of  the  council  frequently  provide  that  copies  of  all 
reports  and  recommendations  of  committees  must  be  sent  to  every  councillor 
and  alderman  a  number  of  days  in  advance  of  the  council's  meeting.     See,  for 
example,  City  of  Birmingham,  Municipal  Diary,  1906,  p.  80. 

2  Lowell,  The  Government  of  England,  II.  169. 


288 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


Nature  of 
the  work 
performed 
by  commit- 
tees. 


Division  of 
work  among 
them. 


The  finance 
committee. 


council  at  all,  simply  taking  it  for  granted  that  approval 
will  follow  their  action.  This  procedure  is,  of  course,  dis- 
couraged by  the  council,  but  it  is  frequently  followed 
nevertheless.1 

Almost  everything  that  comes  up  for  determination  by 
the  council  has  passed  through  the  hands  of  some  com- 
mittee. Much  new  business  goes  directly  to  the  appro- 
priate committee  for  consideration  before  it  is  presented 
to  the  council  at  all ;  but  more  often,  perhaps,  a  matter 
comes  first  to  the  attention  of  the  council  through  the  mo- 
tion of  some  individual  member,  or  through  a  petition 
presented  by  ratepayers,  or  through  a  communication 
(usually  addressed  to  the  town  clerk)  from  some  other 
official  body,  corporation,  or  individual.  In  the  latter 
case  the  first  step  is  almost  invariably  to  refer  the 
business  to  what  seems  to  be  the  appropriate  com- 
mittee, the  determination  of  this  point  resting  with  the 
council  as  a  whole,  and  not,  as  in  the  cities  of  the  United 
States,  with  the  presiding  officer.  If  the  matter  be  one 
of  minor  consequence,  the  committee  may  and  sometimes 
does  report  upon  it  at  once ;  but  questions  of  impor- 
tance it  ordinarily  holds  over  till  the  next  meeting  of  the 
council. 

The  jurisdiction  of  each  standing  committee  is  usually 
defined  with  more  or  less  precision  in  the  Standing  Orders 
of  the  council ;  and  in  cases  of  disagreement  between  com- 
mittees as  to  the  scope  of  their  respective  powers  the 
point  is  decided  by  the  council  as  a  whole.  It  is  the  duty 
of  the  finance  committee,  for  example,  to  prepare  the  an- 
nual budget  for  presentation  to  the  council,  to  direct  and 
superintend  the  keeping  of  all  municipal  accounts,  to  nego- 
tiate all  loans  of  money  which  may  from  time  to  time  be 


326. 


Report  of  the  Boyal  Commission  on  the  Amalgamation  of  London,  I.  302, 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  289 

authorized  by  the  council  with  the  assent  of  the  higher 
authorities,  and  to  see  that  no  moneys  are  paid  out  of  the 
borough  treasury  save  by  order  of  the  committee  or  of  its 
representative.  These  are  portentous  tasks,  which  give 
the  finance  committee  rank  as  the  most  important  of  all  the 
standing  committees.1  Of  the  other  principal  committees,  The  estates 
the  estates  committee  has  general  charge  of  the  public  committee- 
buildings  of  the  borough,  as  well  as  the  superintendence 
of  all  workingmen's  dwellings,  all  tenements,  lands,  and 
other  real  property  owned  by  the  municipality.  The  health, 
or  sanitary,  committee  superintends  all  provisions  made  by 
the  borough  for  the  care  of  the  public  health  and  the  abate- 
ment of  nuisances,  its  jurisdiction  including  such  matters 
as  the  inspection  of  lodging-houses  and  the  enforcement 
of  factory  laws.  The  public-works,  or  buildings,  committee  The  public- 
deals  with  the  construction  and  maintenance  of  sewers  and  mittee.C° 
drains,  streets  and  pavements,  public  lavatories,  and  various 
other  services.  The  watch  committee  has  full  charge  of 
the  police  force,  and  frequently  of  the  fire-protection  service 
as  well.  The  highways  committee  looks  after  the  city's 
streets  ;  the  water-works  committee  cares  for  the  municipal 
water  supply  ;  and  the  parliamentary  committee  guards  the 
city's  interests  at  the  hands  of  the  national  legislature. 
The  education  committee,  which  now  performs  the  func-  other  com- 
tions  that  were,  prior  to  1902,  intrusted  to  the  local  school  importance, 
boards,  supervises  all  matters  connected  with  the  educa- 
tional system  of  the  borough,  having  full  control  over  the 
buildings  and  the  personnel  of  the  borough  schools,  though 
subject,  of  course,  to  the  general  regulations  provided  by 
the  national  Board  of  Education.  Other  prominent  com- 
mittees —  such  as  the  water  committee,  the  gas  committee, 
the  electric-supply  committee,  and  the  tramways  com- 

1  For  a  full  statement  of  the  duties  of  a  typical  committee,  see  the  Municipal 
Diary  of  Birmingham  for  1905-1906,  p.  91. 


290  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

mittee  —  are,  as  their  names  imply,  intrusted  with  the 
duty  of  caring  for  the  so-termed  public  utilities  of  the 
municipality.  When  such  a  utility  is  provided  by  an  en- 
franchised company,  the  appropriate  committee  looks  after 
the  interests  of  the  borough  in  all  its  relations  with  the 
private  corporation  ;  when  the  service  is  provided  by  the 
borough  itself,  the  committee  controls  all  the  incidents  of 
public  operation,  such  as  the  purchase  of  materials,  the 
employment  of  labor,  and  the  fixing  of  all  charges  for 
use. 

Growth  in  The  considerable  progress  which  the  English  munici- 
trativf^func-  polities  have  made  along  the  path  of  municipal  socialism  — 
tionsof  or  municipal  trade,  as  it  is  more  commonly  termed  in 

committees. 

Great  Britain  —  has  served  to  put  upon  the  council  com- 
mittees a  large  amount  of  work  and  an  even  larger 
amount  of  responsibility.1  Every  question,  whether  of 
general  policy  or  of  detailed  administration,  connected 
with  the  operation  of  a  municipal  plant  must  be  con- 
sidered and  passed  upon  by  the  standing  committee  in 
charge  ;  all  contracts  for  the  purchase  of  materials  are 
virtually  awarded  by  it ;  and  it  has  practically  absolute 
control  over  all  appointments  and  removals  of  officials 
connected  with  the  particular  service.  When  it  is  borne 
in  mind  that  some  municipal  utilities  represent  the  invest- 
ment of  millions  of  pounds  and  number  their  employees 
by  the  hundreds,  it  can  readily  be  seen  that  the  powers 
and  responsibilities  of  these  committees  are  very  great, 
and  that  upon  the  care  and  intelligence  with  which  they 
are  exercised  the  success  or  the  failure  of  public  operation 
entirely  depends.  It  is  not  within  the  scope  of  this 
volume,  however,  to  discuss  the  merits  and  defects  of  the 
policy  of  municipal  operation  of  public  utilities  as  shown 

1  It  is  not  easy  to  afford  any  exact  data  on  this  point,  for  a  councillor  may  be 
a  member  of  several  committees  at  the  same  time. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  291 

by  the  experience  of  English  cities.1     It  is  enough  to  say  Municipal 
that  the  outcome  has  been  to  add  very  much  to  the  work 


which  the    borough  council    is,   through  its   committees,  workof 

'    committees. 

called  upon  to  perform  ;  that  the  policy  has  in  conse- 
quence greatly  increased  the  amount  of  time  and  en- 
ergy which  many  of  the  councillors  must  give  to  their 
public  duties  ;  and  that  it  has  probably  operated  to  foster 
the  tendency  of  the  council  to  put  almost  entire  reliance 
upon  the  recommendation  of  its  committees.  There  are 
some  who  believe  that  much  of  the  work  which  now  has 
to  be  done  by  certain  committees  is  pure  drudgery,  and 
that  this  fact  is  tending  more  and  more  to  deter  from 
candidacy  the  class  of  citizens  whose  presence  in  the 
council  is  most  to  be  desired.  "The  man  who  has  re- 
tired from  business,  or  from  whom  business  has  retired, 
may  be  willing  to  offer  his  services  in  spite  of  the  pos- 
sibility of  considerable  calls  being  made  upon  his  time; 
whereas  the  younger,  more  successful,  or  more  able  traders 
or  professional  men  may  well  be  deterred  from  joining  a 
municipal  council  on  account  of  any  increase  in  the  work 
thrown  on  that  body."2  Hitherto  Englishmen  have,  on 

1  The  most  recent,  as  well  as  the  most  comprehensive,  compilation  of  data  to 
which  one  may  refer  for  information  on  this  phase  of  English  borough  adminis- 
tration is  the  Beport  to  the  National  Civic  Federation  Commission  on  Public 
Ownership  and  Operation  (3  vols.,  New  York,  1907).    The  second  volume  of  this 
exhaustive  report  is  wholly  devoted  to  a  presentation  of  material  relating  to 
private  and  public  operation  of  lighting  and  tramway  services  in  Great  Britain. 
The  reports  of  the  Select  Committees  on  Municipal  Trading  (London,  1900 
and  1902)  contain  much  serviceable  data,  both  historical  and  statistical.     Useful 
monographs  on  various  aspects  of  the  question  are   Major  Leonard  Darwin's 
Municipal  Trade  (New  York,  1903),  and  his  Municipal  Ownership  (London, 
1907)  ;  H.  K.  Meyer's  Municipal  Ownership  in  Great  Britain  (New  York,  1906)  ; 
George  Bernard  Shaw's  The  Common  Sense  of  Municipal  Trading  (London, 
1904)  ;   Frederick  Howe's  British   City  (New  York,   1907)  ;   Lord  Avebury's 
Municipal  Trading  (London,  1907)  ;  and  R.  P.  Porter's  The  Dangers  of  Mu- 
nicipal Ownership  (New  York,  1907).    A  fair  and  conservative  summary  of  the 
situation  may  be  found  in  Lowell's  Government  of  England,  II.  ch.  xliv. 

2  Leonard  Darwin,  Municipal  Trade  (New  York,  1903),  102. 


292  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

the  whole,  given  very  liberally  of  their  time  and  energies 
to  the  public  service  ;  but  there  is  a  limit  to  such  generosity, 
and  the  steady  increase  in  the  amount  of  work  to  be  per- 
formed by  the  municipal  councils  of  the  larger  boroughs 
may  very  soon  cause  this  limit  to  be  reached. 

The  role  of        The  role  which  the  council  committees  play  in  the  ad- 
ministration  of   an   English   city  is  extremely  important, 


actual  gov-   ancj  entirely  iustifies  the  strongest  emphasis.     It  would  be 

eminent.  J    J 

safe  to  say  that  nine  out  of  every  ten  matters  of  routine 

are  virtually  settled  in  committee  and    come  before    the 

council  only  for    formal    ratification.1     Now,  in   view    of 

the  fact  that  the  members  of  the  committees  are  after  all 

only  laymen,  it  might  readily  be  assumed  that  the  com- 

mittees would  be  likely  to  cope  very  ineffectually  with  the 

large  number  of  technical  problems  which  they  have  to 

The  ama-      solve  ;  and  this  would  probably  be  the  case  were  it  not 

professional   that  behind  the  committees  there  stand  as  steadying  fac- 

factors.   ;     tors  the  permanent,  professional,  paid  officials  of  the  mu- 

nicipality.    To  every  important  committee-meeting  one  or 

more  of  these  officials  are  almost  invariably  summoned. 

They  have  no  right  to  vote,  it  is  true  ;  but  their  counsel 

carries  strong    weight  with    members  of    the   committee, 

particularly  when  the  matter  in  hand    is  of   a  technical 

nature.     The  borough  engineer,  for  instance,  attends    all 

influence  of    important  meetings  of  the  committee  on  highways;  and 

officials611      hig    judgment    on    plans,  specifications,  methods    of    con- 

workof6       struction  and  repair,  hiring  of  employees,  and  a  host  of 

committees,   other  matters  is  in  many  cases  practically  decisive.     Tt  is 

true  enough  that  a  committee  may  and  often  does  disre- 

gard the  advice  of  the  permanent  officials  after  it  has  asked 

for  and  received  their  opinion  ;  but  it  would  be  entirely 

out  of  consonance  with  the  spirit  and  traditions  of  English 

1  As  a  rule,  the  committee-meetings  are  not  open  to  the  public.    See  the 
Report  of  the  Royal  Commission  on  the  Amalgamation  of  London,  I.  321. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  293 

borough  government  for  any  committee  to  make  a  practice 
of  disregarding  such  advice.  Much  depends,  natural!}'-,  on 
the  caliber  and  experience  of  the  official ;  for  an  expert 
who  has  held  his  post  with  success  for  a  long  term  of 
years  has  an  obvious  advantage  in  dealing  with  a  shifting 
body  of  laymen.  Hence  it  comes  to  pass  that  an  efficient 
and  tactful  head  of  a  city  department  usually  finds  it 
possible  to  carry  out  his  plans  about  as  he  pleases,  pro- 
vided always  that  he  has  the  confidence  of  the  committee 
in  charge.  When  the  official  and  the  chairman  of  the 
committee  work  in  harmony,  their  influence  in  determining 
matters  of  routine  administration  is  usually  conclusive. 
There  is  consequently  very  little  basis  for  the  distinction  German  and 
frequently  drawn  between  English  and  German  city  ad-  committees 
ministration,  to  the  effect  that  in  England  the  government  comPared- 
of  cities  is  in  the  hands  of  amateurs,  whereas  in  Germany 
it  is  confided  to  paid  experts.  A  study  of  the  municipal 
codes  of  England  and  Prussia  would  certainly  leave  one 
with  just  this  impression ;  but  an  examination  of  the 
actual  practice  in  the  cities  of  the  two  countries  will  prove 
very  conclusively  that  the  distinction  has  little  or  no  real 
foundation.  German  cities  have  both  the  form  and  the 
fact  of  administration  by  paid  experts ;  the  cities  of  Eng- 
land and  France  have  the  fact  but  not  the  form.  Indeed, 
it  may  very  well  be  doubted  whether  the  German  expert 
has  a  whit  more  of  actual  influence  in  the  determination  of 
civic  policy  than  have  his  prototypes  in  the  other  two 
countries.  In  all  three  lands  the  most  potent  factor  in 
securing  efficient  and  economical  administration  for  the 
municipalities  is  the  plain  fact  that,  whatever  the  external 
forms  of  local  government  may  be,  the  actual  conduct  of 
affairs  is  intrusted  very  largely  to  professional  officials 
who  hold  office  for  long  terms.  It  is  the  existence  of 
this  policy  throughout  Europe  and  the  absence  of  it  in 


294  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN   CITIES 

America  that  chiefly  distinguishes  the  municipal  systems 
of  the  two  continents. 

Municipal  The  act  of  1882  required  that  every  borough  should  en- 
gage the  services  of  at  least  two  officials,  a  town  clerk 
and  a  treasurer ;  but  it  empowered  the  council  to  appoint 
such  other  officers  as  it  might  deem  necessary,  a  permis- 
sion of  which  practically  all  the  cities  have  availed  them- 
selves.1 Besides  the  two  officials  named,  a  borough 
ordinarily  has  an  engineer  or  surveyor,  a  medical  officer,  a 
chief  constable  or  head  of  the  local  police  establishment, 
a  clerk  of  works,  a  public  analyst,  and  various  other  offi- 
cials, the  number  being,  of  course,  considerably  larger  in  a 
city  which  has  municipalized  its  public  utilities,  for  in 
that  case  each  service  has  its  own  permanent  head  or 
manager.  All  these  higher  officers  are  appointed  by  the 
council ;  wTith  the  single  exception  of  one  auditor,  the  English 
city  chooses  none  of  its  regular  officials  by  popular  vote. 
In  making  its  selection,  moreover,  the  council  is  guided 
very  largely  by  the  recommendations  of  the  committee 
within  whose  sphere  of  influence  the  matter  happens  to 
lie :  in  its  choice  of  a  chief  constable,  it  would  be  guided 

Selection  of  by  the  recommendation  made  to  it  by  the  watch  com- 
mittee, in  the  choice  of  a  treasurer  by  the  advice  of  the 
finance  committee,  and  so  on.  Whenever  one  of  these 
higher  posts  becomes  vacant,  the  council  usually  authorizes 
the  town  clerk  to  announce,  either  through  the  local  news- 
paper or  otherwise,  that  applications  for  appointment  to 
the  position  will  be  entertained.  These  applications  may 
be  filed  by  non-residents  as  well  as  by  residents  of  the 
borough,  and  as  a  rule  no  limitations  in  the  way  of 
specific  qualifications  are  imposed.  No  examinations, 
either  competitive  or  of  any  other  kind,  are  ever  held  as  a 
preliminary  to  municipal  appointments ;  the  council  has 

1  Municipal  Corporations  Act,  §§  17-20. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  295 

absolute    discretion    in    selecting    whomsoever    it    desires. 

It  is  undoubtedly  true,  however,  that  an  applicant    who 

does  not  possess  such  general  qualifications  as  seem  to  fit  Quaiifica- 

him  to  perform  the  duties  of  the  office  would  have  little  ^Ttment** 

or  no  chance  of  favorable  consideration.     Thus,  it  is  ex- 

pected that  an  applicant  for  the  post  of  town  clerk  shall 

have  qualified  himself  as  a  solicitor,  or  legal  practitioner  ; 

for  the  duties  of  this  office  are  of  such  a  nature   as    to 

make  it  almost  absolutely  necessary  that  its   incumbent 

shall  have  a  knowledge  of  the  law.     Again,  no  one  but  a 

trained  engineer  may  with  any  chance  of  success  apply 

for  the  position  of  borough  surveyor  ;   and  no  one  but  a 

qualified  physician  is  ever  considered  as  eligible    to    the 

post  of  health  officer.     The  qualifications  demanded  are, 

however,  general  rather  than  specific. 

When  the  time  for  receiving  applications  has  expired,  influence  of 
those  which  have  come  to  hand  are  turned  over  to  the 


appropriate  committee  for  consideration.     The  committee  tion  of  offi" 

cials. 

carefully  examines  the  testimonials  that  have  been  sub- 
mitted with  the  applications,  obtains  such  outside  infor- 
mation regarding  the  candidates  as  it  desires,  occasionally 
calls  before  it  some  of  the  stronger  applicants,  and  finally 
makes  its  selection,  very  commonly  designating  to  the 
council  not  only  its  first  choice  from  among  the  candi- 
dates but  its  second  and  third  ones  as  well.  This  recom- 
mendation the  council  usually  indorses  as  a  matter  of 
course,  although  cases  in  which  it  has  for  some  special 
reason  declined  to  accept  the  committee's  advice  are  by  no 
means  unknown.  In  general,  however,  it  is  safe  enough 
to  say  that,  when  a  committee  decides  in  favor  of  an  appli- 
cant, the  appointment  is  practically  settled. 

Since  members  of  the  council  are,  for  the  most  part,  Party 


chosen  at  elections  in  which  party  lines  are  closely  drawn, 
and    since    the   various    committees  are  constituted  with  8ent- 


296  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

party  motives  well  in  the  foreground,  it  may  very  well 
be  asked  what  there  is  to  prevent  partisan  considerations 
from  determining  municipal  appointments  in  England  as 
they  do  in  most  cities  of  the  United  States.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  there  is  absolutely  nothing  between  English  cities 
and  the  spoils  system  but  sound  municipal  traditions 
and  the  good  sense  of  the  councilmen ;  save  for  these  two 
barriers  there  is  nothing  to  prevent  each  new  borough 
council  from  turning  out  every  borough  official,  from  high- 
est to  lowest,  and  installing  a  hierarchy  of  its  own  party 
henchmen.  Any  such  policy  is,  however,  entirely  incon- 
ceivable ;  for  any  borough  council  that  should  take  an 
open  step  in  that  direction  would  bring  down  upon  itself 
a  torrent  of  condemnation,  not  only  from  the  voters  of  its 
own  city,  but  from  Englishmen  throughout  the  land.1  This 
is  not  to  say,  however,  that  partisan  considerations  play 
no  part  whatever  in  determining  appointments  to  munici- 
pal office.  Those  who  have  followed  closely  the  proceed- 
ings of  council  committees  in  the  larger  English  cities 
know  very  well  that  such  considerations  have  an  influence, 
and  that  this  influence  is  often  very  important.  When  a 
lucrative  post  like  that  of  town  clerk  or  town  treasurer  is  to 
be  filled,  it  is  unusual  to  find  that  the  appointee  comes 
from  a  party  other  than  that  represented  by  a  majority 
of  the  committeemen  who  make  the  recommendation.  If 
a  borough  council  contains  a  majority  of  Liberals  when  such 
a  post  becomes  vacant,  it  may  be  pretty  definitely  counted 
upon  that,  whatever  else  happens,  a  Liberal  will  get  the 
office.  It  does  not  at  all  follow,  however,  that  the  appointee 
will  be  selected  merely  because  he  has  rendered  yeoman 
service  to  his  party,  or  that  he  will  be  unfit  to  perform 

1  An  interesting  example  of  this  was  afforded  in  the  borough  of  West  Ham, 
where,  in  1899,  the  Socialist  party  obtained  control  of  the  council  and  dismissed 
the  borough  surveyor.  See  Lowell,  The  Government  of  England,  II.  173. 


THE   GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  297 

efficiently  the  duties  of  his  position.  It  simply  means  that, 
as  between  applicants  whose  general  qualifications  are  ap- 
proximately equal,  a  co-partisan  is  preferred.  To  be 
successful  a  candidate  for  municipal  office  must  first  of  all 
show  that  he  is  thoroughly  qualified  for  the  post  which 
he  seeks ;  having  done  this,  he  finds  that  a  record  for 
having  served  his  party  well  is  a  useful  supplement  to 
his  claims. 

Without  resorting  to  any  intricate  legislative  safeguards,  Absence  of 
therefore,  the  English  cities  have  maintained  practically  restrictions 
all  the  advantages  which  American  municipalities  seek  to  isnotfeit. 
secure  for  themselves  through  civil  service  regulations. 
Appointments  dictated  by  the  qualifications  of  the  aspi- 
rants and  not  by  the  record  of  their  party  services, 
security  of  tenure  on  the  part  of  all  the  higher  officials, 
and  the  entire  absence  of  removals  without  valid  cause, 
—  all  these  features  characterize  the  English  municipal 
service,  though  no  one  of  them  is  in  the  least  degree 
maintained  or  protected  by  any  legal  enactment.  Offi- 
cials are  put  into  office  without  any  fixed  limit  of  term. 
This  means  in  theory  that  they  are  removable  at  the 
pleasure  or  even  at  the  caprice  of  a  majority  of  the  coun- 
cil ;  it  means  in  practice  that  they  remain  in  office  during 
good  behavior  and  efficiency.  There  is  no  spoils  system, 
therefore,  because  there  are  no  spoils,  or  rather  because 
the  spoils  are  distributed  so  infrequently.  This  security 
of  tenure  has  in  England,  as  elsewhere  in  Europe,  contrib- 
uted very  greatly  to  elevate  the  plane  of  municipal  poli- 
tics ;  for  it  has  saved  the  cities  from  the  activities  of  the 
professional  office-seeker,  whose  influence  is  scarcely  ever 
other  than  debasing. 

In  order  that  the  actual  part  taken  by  the  higher  paid  The  duties 

,  i        and  powers 

officials  in  the  administration  of  the  boroughs  may  be  ade-  Ofcityoffi- 
quately  emphasized,  it  may  be  well  to  note  in  a  general  cials- 


298  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

way  just  what  these  officers  are  expected  to  do.1  The 
The  town  town  clerk,  to  begin  with,  has  the  custody  of  all  the  char- 
ters, deeds,  leases,  and  'other  legal  documents  of  the  mu- 
nicipality ;  he  must  see  that  these  are  kept  safe,  and  that 
they  are  produced  before  the  council  when  desired.  He  is  in 
all  ordinary  matters  the  legal  counsel  of  the  borough ;  to 
him  the  council  turns  for  advice  upon  any  matter  concern- 
ing the  rights  and  responsibilities  of  the  municipality. 
He  is  the  one  man  in  the  city  who  must  profess  familiarity 
with  the  mass  of  legislative  enactments,  provisional  orders, 
and  judicial  decisions  relating  to  the  boroughs  in  general 
and  to  his  own  municipality  in  particular.  In  a  word,  he 
performs  practically  all  the  functions  that  in  an  American 
city  are  intrusted  to  a  special  officer  —  to  the  city  solic- 
Legai  duties,  itor,  or  municipal  counsel.  When  important  litigation 
arises,  the  town  clerk  is  always  authorized  by  the  council  to 
employ  one  or  more  barristers  to  represent  the  city  before 
the  courts ;  but  he  is  expected  to  prepare  all  the  prelimi- 
nary papers  himself,  and  indeed  to  work  up  the  entire  case. 
When  the  municipality  desires  to  promote  any  private  bill 
before  Parliament,  it  is  the  town  clerk  who  frames  the  first 
draft  of  the  bill,  marshals  the  evidence  in  its  behalf,  em- 
ploys parliamentary  agents  to  support  it  before  the  legisla- 
tive committee,  and  in  most  cases  goes  personally  to  Lon- 
don to  see  the  matter  through.2  All  the  correspondence 
of  the  city  with  individuals,  with  other  municipalities, 
and  with  the  government  departments  passes  through  his 
hands  ;  and  to  his  office  belongs  the  task  of  preparing  and 
transmitting  all  the  accounts  and  reports  which  the  Local 
Government  Board,  the  Board  of  Trade,  and  the  other  cen- 
tral authorities  may  require  from  time  to  time.  When 

1  This  enumeration  of  duties  has  been  compiled  after  an  examination  of  the 
Standing  Orders,  By-laws,  and  other  rules  of  various  boroughs  as  set  forth  in 
their  annual  year-books. 

2  Cf.  above,  pp.  263-267. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  299 

provisional  orders  are  desired  from  one  or  another  of  these 
central  authorities,  the  town  clerk  makes  the  application 
and  prepares  the  data  to  be  sent  in  support  of  the  request. 

In  addition  to  the  foregoing  duties,  which  are  largely  Secretarial 
of  a  legal  nature,  the  clerk  has  many  important  secretarial  functlons- 
functions.  He  is  expected,  for  example,  to  attend  all 
meetings  of  the  council  and  all  meetings  of  the  various 
council  committees  ;  since,  however,  this  task  would  in  a 
large  city  be  a  virtual  impossibility  for  any  one  man,  he 
is  usually  provided  with  one  or  more  assistant  clerks,  who 
attend  the  committee-meetings  for  him.  It  is  expected 
that  either  the  town  clerk  or  his  assistant  shall  take  the 
minutes  of  all  council  or  committee  meetings,  shall  prepare 
all  committee  reports  in  proper  form  for  presentation  to 
the  council,  shall  draft  all  resolutions,  memorials,  and  by- 
laws that  come  before  the  council  for  its  consideration,  and 
shall  act  as  the  factotum  of  the  municipal  authorities  in 
all  their  clerical  work.  To  his  shoulders,  also,  are  vir- 
tually transferred  many  functions  that  are  by  law  assigned 
to  the  mayor,  —  as,  for  example,  the  entire  work  of  getting 
ready  for  the  annual  municipal  nominations  and  elections. 
Not  infrequently,  too,  he  is  ex  officio  clerk  of  the  peace  Misceiiane- 
for  the  city,  and  performs  various  minor  duties  as  registrar 
of  the  local  court,  such  as  giving  certificates  of  admission 
to  citizenship,  authenticating  legal  documents,  and  so  on. 
As  if  these  tasks  were  not  sufficient,  it  is  sometimes  pro- 
vided in  the  standing  regulations  of  the  borough  council 
that  the  town  clerk  shall  "  perform  and  carry  out  all  other 
duties  which  may  be  required  of  him  by  the  council  or 
which  may  hereafter  be  imposed  upon  him."  1 

The  English  town  clerk  is  the  highest  paid  official  in  importance 

of  this  post. 

the  municipality ;  his  duties  are  the  most  comprehensive 
and  the  most  important,  and  upon  him  more  than  upon 

i  City  of  York,  Year  Book,  1905-1906,  p.  78. 


300  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

any  other  officer  depends  the  general  efficiency  of  munici- 
pal administration.  In  the  larger  boroughs  he  is  almost 
invariably  a  man  of  long  experience  in  his  particular 
branch  of  administration ;  for  a  large  municipality  does 
not,  when  the  post  becomes  vacant,  ordinarily  appoint 
some  one  from  private  life,  but  selects  its  man  from 
among  the  clerks  of  smaller  cities,  who,  having  usually 
entered  the  municipal  service  at  an  "early  age  and  in  a 
subordinate  capacity,  have  grown  up  in  the  work.  The 
town  clerk  of  a  large  city  commonly  finds  places  in  his 
office  for  several  "  articled  clerks,"  or  young  men  who  go 
to  him  to  learn  the  duties  of  the  post.  These  young  men 
serve  without  pay,  —  indeed,  they  sometimes  actually  pay 
the  town  clerk  for  the  privilege  of  working  with  him  ;  and, 
when  they  have  served  their  terms  and  have  passed  their 
examinations  as  solicitors,  they  seek  posts  as  clerks  in  the 
smaller  boroughs,  expecting  in  time  to  gain  promotion  to 
the  larger  ones.  This  branch  of  the  municipal  service  has 
therefore  become  a  career,  for  the  town  clerk  of  a  large 
city  usually  comes  to  be  an  authority  on  every  matter  con- 
nected with  municipal  administration.  If  the  evidence 
taken  by  the  Royal  Commission  on  the  Amalgamation  of 
London  some  years  ago  be  examined,  it  will  appear  very 
conclusively  that  the  clerks  of  the  larger  boroughs  stand  out 
clearly  as  the  men  from  whom  the  commissioners  invariably 
derived  the  most  accurate  information  and  the  most  profit- 
able suggestions.  Their  testimony  shows  some  of  them  to 
have  been  complete  masters  of  their  craft.1  Under  such 
circumstances,  therefore,  the  influence  of  the  town  clerk 
with  the  local  authorities  is  always  large  and  occasionally 
dominating,  for  in  dealing  with  laymen  his  professional 

1  See,  for  example,  the  testimony  of  Sir  Samuel  Johnson,  town  clerk  of 
Nottingham,  and  of  Mr.  Clare,  town  clerk  of  Liverpool,  in  the  Minutes  of 
Evidence  appended  to  the  commission's  Report. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  301 

skill  and  his  long  experience  give  him  a  great  advantage. 
It  is  he  and  not  the  mayor  who  is  the  helmsman  of  the 
municipal  craft,  a  fact  that  is  recognized  by  none  more 
readily  than  by  the  councillors  themselves,  for  it  is  with  him 
that  the  chairmen  of  committees  constantly  confer  when 
any  difficulties  arise.  In  return  for  such  important  ser- 
vices the  clerk  receives  an  annual  stipend  which  is  usually 
quite  in  keeping  with  the  importance  of  his  position.  In 
some  cases  he  gets  as  much  as  ten  thousand  dollars  a  year, 
with  additional  allowances  for  travelling  expenses  ;  but, 
except  in  a  very  few  cities,  he  is  not  provided  with  a  pension 
on  retirement. 

A  second  permanent  borough  official,  whose  duties  are  The  city  sur- 
of  nearly  equal  scope  and  consequence,  is  the  city  surveyor,  veyor 
or  municipal  engineer.1  This  officer  superintends  all  the 
work  of  construction  and  repair  carried  on  by  the  munici- 
pality. He  is  required  to  examine  and  report  to  the 
council  all  sites  for  proposed  new  buildings,  and  all  proj- 
ects for  the  construction  of  new  streets,  sewers,  parks,  or 
squares ;  to  prepare  the  plans  and  specifications  for  any 
work  which  the  city  proposes  to  undertake  ;  and  to  inspect 
and  superintend  the  laying  of  pavements,  the  building  of 
sewers,  and  all  similar  undertakings.  No  moneys  are  paid 
for  any  work  done  for  the  municipality  by  contractors 
except  on  production  of  a  certificate  from  the  surveyor 
vouching  that  the  work  has  been  satisfactorily  completed. 
This  official  also  arranges  for  the  purchase,  by  tender  or 
otherwise,  of  all  materials  needed  by  the  borough  ;  but  for 
such  purchases  he  must  have  the  prior  authorization  of  the 
appropriate  council  committee.  He  superintends  the  in- 
spection of  the  materials  when  delivered,  and  is  responsible 
for  seeing  that  the  municipality  obtains,  both  in  quantity 

1  The  appointment  of  this  officer  is  made  mandatory  in  all  boroughs  by  the 
Public  Health  Act  of  1875  (38-39  Victoria,  c.  65,  §  189). 


302 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


His  duties. 


Special 

aptitude 

required. 


and  in  quality,  what  it  has  bargained  for.  All  the  labor 
required  on  municipal  works  is  hired  under  his  supervision, 
and  all  pay-sheets  must  bear  his  signature  before  any 
wages  are  disbursed  by  the  treasurer.  Subject  to  the 
direction  and  control  of  the  council  through  its  committee 
on  public  works  or  other  appropriate  committee,  the 
surveyor  concentrates  in  himself  full  responsibility  in  all 
matters  relating  to  the  construction  and  repair  of  city 
property.  In  the  approval  of  plans,  the  award  of  contracts, 
and  the  general  determination  of  construction  policy,  both 
the  public-works  committee  and  the  council  are  guided 
very  largely  by  his  advice.1  At  all  meetings  of  this  com- 
mittee the  surveyor  is  present,  and  on  all  important  mat- 
ters his  counsel  is  in  demand.  Sometimes,  it  is  true,  the 
committee  sets  aside  his  opinion  in  favor  of  its  own 
judgment ;  but  such  rejection  is  uncommon.  Indeed,  a 
committee  which  regularly  disregarded  the  advice  of  its 
expert  would  very  soon  find  itself  advertising  for  a  new 
surveyor. 

As  the  borough  surveyor  is  invariably  a  trained  engineer, 
he,  like  the  town  clerk,  has  during  the  last  few  decades 
found  his  branch  of  the  municipal  service  tending  more 
and  more  to  become  a  definite  career.  The  larger  boroughs 
now  frequently  select  their  surveyors  from  among  the 
smaller  municipalities ;  it  is  becoming  less  common  for 
engineers  in  private  practice  to  transfer  to  the  municipal 
service,  and  less  common  for  municipal  engineers  to  trans- 
fer to  private  practice.  The  borough  surveyor  receives  a 
salary  which  compares  very  favorably  with  that  of  an  en- 
gineer in  an  unofficial  enterprise  ;  and,  if  he  performs  his 
duties  efficiently,  he  need  Jiave  no  fear  of  removal  from 
office,  a  consideration  which  enables  him  to  look  far  ahead 


1  In  English  cities  contracts  are  always  approved  by  the  council,  —  never,  as 
in  most  American  cities,  by  the  mayor. 


%    THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  303 

in  mapping  out  his  plans.  When  he  enjoys  the  confidence 
of  the  committee  he  virtually  holds  the  larger  part  of  the 
municipal  patronage,  which  he  exercises  with  a  sole 
eye  to  getting  full  value  for  the  moneys  that  his  depart- 
ment is  allowed  to  spend.  Thus  it  comes  about  that,  al- 
though the  awarding  of  municipal  contracts  and  the 
employment  of  the  city's  labor  force  are  legally  vested 
with  a  large  elective  council,  the  actual  exercise  of  these 
prerogatives  of  patronage  is  almost  wholly  in  the  hands  of 
a  man  who  holds  office  virtually  for  life,  and  who  has  no 
reason  to  develop  a  following  among  the  electors  since  he 
never  seeks  their  suffrages  at  the  polls. 

Another  important  post  is  that  of  city  treasurer,  the  The  city 
official  who  keeps  the  accounts  of  the  municipality,  re- 
ceives all  moneys  paid  to  the  corporation,  and  disburses 
funds  when  authorized  by  proper  vouchers.  The  law  de- 
mands that  the  treasurer  shall  make  up  the  accounts  of  the 
municipality  at  least  twice  annually,  and  the  councils 
ordinarily  require  this  to  be  done  in  September  and 
March  of  each  year.  These  accounts  go  at  once  to  the 
borough  auditors.  Although  the  treasurer  plays  no  large 
part  in  determining  the  financial  policy  of  the  borough, 
he  is  frequently  called  upon  by  the  finance  committee  of 
the  council  to  give  expert  advice  regarding  advantageous 
times,  places,  and  methods  of  borrowing  money,  and  about 
many  other  such  matters.  In  the  larger  boroughs  the  oc- 
cupant of  the  post  is  usually  one  who  has  had  some  con- 
siderable financial  experience ;  he  gives  all  his  time  to  the 
duties  of  his  office,  and  receives  in  return  a  substantial 
salary. 

Hardly   less   influential    is    the  chief  constable,  who  is  The  chief 
at  the  head  of  the  local  police  establishment,  but  subject, 
of  course,  to  the  supervision  of  the  watch  committee  of 
the  council.     Over  the  working  of  the  police  system  this 


ors. 


304  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

committee  maintains  in  all  the  boroughs  rather  close  in- 
spection, but  the  advice  of  the  chief  constable  always 
carries  considerable  weight  with  its  members.  All  ap- 
pointments to  positions  on  the  police  force  are  made  by 
the  council  on  the  recommendation  of  the  watch  com- 
mittee ;  and  all  questions  relating  to  pay,  equipment,  and 
discipline  are  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  same  authority. 
Part  of  the  cost  of  maintaining  the  police  in  the  English 
boroughs  is,  as  will  be  seen  later  on,  borne  by  the  national 
government,  provided  always  that  after  due  inspection  the 
system  is  found  to  be  up  to  the  proper  standard.1  For  the 
maintenance  of  this  standard  the  chief  constable  is  held 
primarily  responsible. 

The  audit-  Of  somewhat  less  importance  among  the  officers  of  the 
borough  are  the  auditors,  of  whom  every  borough  has 
three.  Two  of  them  are  chosen  at  the  annual  elections  of 
the  municipality,  only  such  persons  as  are  qualified  for 
election  to  the  borough  council  being  eligible.  Nominally 
these  two  auditors  hold  office  for  a  single  year  only  ;  but 
as  a  matter  of  practice  they  are  in  the  larger  cities  regu- 
larly reelected.  The  third  auditor  is  appointed  by  the 
mayor  from  among  the  members  of  the  borough  council. 
There  is  no  legal  requirement  that  the  auditors  shall  be 
men  of  any  training  or  skill  in  the  work  which  they  are 
supposed  to  perform  ;  indeed,  all  three  of  them  are  usually 
mere  laymen,  who,  even  though  they  might  strive  earnestly 
to  do  their  work  efficiently,  would  be  very  likely  to  over- 
look financial  irregularities.  The  larger  cities  have  there- 
fore, for  the  most  part,  made  provision  that  the  three  regu- 
lar auditors  shall  be  assisted  in  their  work  by  a  professional 
accountant,  appointed  by  the  council  and  paid  a  substantial 
remuneration  from  the  municipal  treasury.  In  some  cases 
the  cities  have  obtained  special  parliamentary  powers  to 

1  See  below,  pp.  333-837. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  305 

enable  them  to  do  this  without  laying  the  validity  of  their 
action  open  to  question. 

The  Municipal  Corporations  Act  requires  that  the  finan-  Methods  of 
cial  accounts  of  each  borough  shall  be  made  up  semi-  auditing- 
annually,  and  that  within  one  month  after  they  have  been 
balanced  they  shall  be  submitted,  with  the  usual  vouchers 
and  papers,  to  the  three  auditors.1  These  officials,  either  by 
themselves  or  with  the  help  of  the  professional  accountant 
employed  by  the  council,  go  over  the  bills  and  make  a 
report  to  the  council.  They  have  no  power  to  disallow 
any  payment  which  the  treasurer  may  have  made  under 
the  warrant  of  the  council  or  other  proper  authority,  but 
they  may  make  public  any  disbursement  which  they  deem 
to  have  been  illegal.  Occasionally  they  embody  in  their 
report  to  the  council  various  suggestions  designed  to  secure 
improvements  in  the  methods  of  municipal  financing  and 
accounting ;  but  much  more  often  the  auditors'  report  is 
a  purely  formal  and  perfunctory  affair.  When  the  audit 
has  been  concluded,  an  abstract  of  the  treasurer's  account 
is  prepared  and  printed,  and  is  distributed  to  such 
ratepayers  as  may  desire  copies  of  it.2  In  addition,  the 
town  clerk  is  required  to  transmit  once  a  year  to  the 
Local  Government  Board  a  statement  of  the  borough's 
receipts  and  expenditures ;  and  the  latter  body  must 
annually  lay  before  Parliament  an  abstract  of  these  re- 
turns from  all  the  boroughs.8  By  providing  special  forms 
upon  which  these  annual  tables  of  borough  revenues 
and  expenditures  must  be  made,  the  board  has  not  only 
been  enabled  to  lay  before  Parliament  a  digest  of  borough 
finances  in  comprehensive  and  comparable  form,  but  has 

1  Municipal  Corporations  Act,  §§  25-28. 

2  There  is  no  legal  requirement  that  this  abstract  shall  be  published  in  the 
local  newspapers  ;  but  it  is,  in  the  larger  boroughs,  usually  printed  in  the  annual 
year-book  of  the  municipality. 

8  See  also  below,  p.  328. 


306  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

also  secured  a  greater  approach  to  uniformity  in  the 
methods  of  accounting  pursued  by  the  borough  treasurers 
and  auditors.  It  should  be  clearly  understood,  however, 
that  borough  accounts  are  not,  like  those  of  urban  districts, 
counties,  and  other  local  units,  audited  by  the  officials  of 
the  Local  Government  Board  or  by  any  other  central 
authority.  Each  borough  is  wholly  responsible  for  the 
final  auditing  of  its  own  accounts.1 

other  offi-  In  addition  to  the  various  local  officers  already  named, 
each  municipal  council  appoints  such  others  as  it  is  from 
time  to  time  required  by  statute  to  choose,  or  such  as  it 
may  deem  desirable  for  the  carrying  on  of  the  various 
administrative  functions  of  the  municipality.  Every  large 
borough  has  many  such  officials,  some  paid  and  some  un- 
paid, some  professional  experts  and  some  amateurs,  some 
who  give  all  their  time  and  attention  to  civic  duties, 
others  who  give  but  a  small  part  of  it.  In  every  case 
the  council  is  the  appointing  authority;  in  every  case,  also, 
it  prescribes  the  duties  of  the  officer  and  supervises  his 
work.  In  no  instance  are  such  officials  either  named  by 
the  mayor  or  elected  by  popular  vote,  as  they  are  in  Ameri- 
can cities. 

The  munici-       In    addition    to   these    higher,    permanent    officials    of 
ees.  administration,  every  large  borough  has  its  hierarchy  of 

lower  officers  and  employees,  ranging  from  the  assistants 
of  the  chief  officials  down  to  the  ranks  of  the  unskilled  day- 
laborers  of  the  street  and  sewer-construction  departments. 
The  number  of  such  employees  depends  not  only  upon 
the  size  of  the  municipality,  but  to  an  even  greater  degree 
upon  the  extent  to  which  the  borough  has  embarked 
upon  the  policy  of  directly  owning  and  operating  various 
public  services.  Strictly  speaking,  all  these  employees  — 

1  An  exception  is  made  in  the  case  of  Education  accounts,  which  are  subject 
to  central  audit. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  307 

and  in  the  largest  cities  they  number  well  up  into  the 
thousands  —  are  appointed  by  the  municipal  council;  but, 
as  a  matter  of  practice,  employment  in  the  lower  walks 
of  the  city's  service  is  given  either  by  the  higher  permanent 
officials  in  charge  or  by  the  appropriate  council  committees. 
Since,  however,  these  subordinates  exercise  nothing  but  a 
delegated  power,  they  may  be  overruled  by  the  council 
at  any  time. 

A  system  which    vests  such   an   enormous   amount  of  HOW  the 
patronage  in  the  hands  of  a  large  council,  allowing  this 


body  to  exercise  its  appointing  power  either  directly  or  work?in 
through  its  committees,  with  no  restrictions  in  the  way 
of  civil  service  regulations,  and  with  apparently  no  ade- 
quate means  of  centralizing  responsibility  for  appoint- 
ments good  or  bad,  would  seem  on  its  face  to  render  easy 
the  debauchment  of  the  city's  entire  working  force  for 
partisan  ends.  Nothing  of  the  sort  has  taken  place,  how- 
ever ;  for,  although  personal  and  partisan  considerations 
occasionally  assist  men  to  places  on  the  borough's  pay-roll, 
public  opinion  has  consistently  held  the  local  authorities 
to  a  general  observance  of  the  principle  of  non-partisan- 
ship in  the  exercise  of  their  patronage.  The  simple  fact 
is  that  here  again  healthy  local  traditions  have  secured 
what  American  cities  have  failed  to  obtain  even  by  the 
application  of  the  most  stringent  legislative  safeguards. 
In  this  circumstance  lies  the  explanation  of  the  paradox 
that,  although  all  municipal  employees  are  removable  at 
any  time  by  a  bare  majority  vote  of  the  council,  with- 
out any  statement  of  cause  and  even  without  the  formal- 
ity of  a  hearing,  yet  removals  for  any  reason  other  than 
gross  inefficiency  are  practically  unknown.1 

1  The  whole  matter  of  the  relation  of  labor  to  English  municipal  administra- 
tion is  fully  discussed  in  the  article  on  "  Labor  and  Politics,"  in  National  Civic 
Federation,  Eeport  on  Public  Ownership  and  Operation,  Pt.  II.  Vol.  II.  1-112. 


308 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


Municipal 


pai  owner- 


The  larger  English  boroughs,  especially  those  which 
have  embarked  in  municipal  trading,  are  extensive  em- 
payers  of  labor,  and  hence  are  brought  into  close  relations 
with  various  labor  organizations.  With  two  exceptions, 
however,  no  large  city  has  adopted  the  policy  of  agreeing 
to  employ  union  men  exclusively  in  any  municipal  depart- 
ment :  1  the  principle  of  the  "  open  shop  "  is  almost  every- 
where followed.  A  careful  investigation  of  the  labor 
situation  in  English  cities,  made  a  year  or  two  ago  under 
impartial  auspices,  showed  that  in  general  the  boroughs 
paid  no  more  for  their  "  skilled  or  partly  skilled  labor  "  than 
did  private  employers.  With  respect  to  "  common,  unor- 
ganized labor,"  however,  it  was  found  that  the  English  cities 
had  in  most  cases  a  minimum  rate  of  wages  which  appeared 
to  be  distinctly  higher  than  the  minimum  in  private  employ- 
ment ;  but  it  was  also  discovered  that  the  municipalities 
usually  secured  a  better  grade  of  unskilled  labor,  and 
were  accordingly  warranted  in  affording  it  better  remuner- 
ation. There  seems,  indeed,  to  be  no  doubt  whatever  that 
the  English  cities,  taken  together,  have  succeeded  in  obtain- 
ing for  their  labor  expenditures  returns  which  are  fairly 
comparable  with  those  secured  by  well-conducted  busi- 
ness corporations,  a  statement  which  cannot  truthfully  be 
made  concerning  the  cities  of  the  United  States.  This 
difference  is  manifestly  one  of  very  great  importance  ;  for 
upon  the  capabilities  that  cities  are  able  to  show  in  this 
direction  hinges  in  a  very  large  measure  the  whole  argu- 
ment for  or  against  the  policy  of  direct  operation  of  mu- 
nicipal services.2 

When  the  city  becomes  a  large  employer  of  labor,  and 

1  These  exceptions  are  Birmingham  in  its  gas  department  and  Manchester 
in  its  tramway  service.    National  Civic  Federation's  Report,  Pt.  I.  Vol.  I.  103-104. 

2  "  The  words  '  municipal  ownership  '  do  not  suggest  the  real  points  at  issue. 
When  should  labor  be  directly  employed  by  municipalities  is  the  vital  ques- 
tion." —  LEONARD  DARWIN,  Municipal  Ownership  (New  York,  1907),  p.  ix. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  309 

when  its  employees  are  also  voters,  the  danger  that  the  Municipal 
municipal  authorities  will  be  subjected  to  strong  pressure  SJScijS 
in  the  interests  of  higher  pay,  shorter  hours,  and  so  on,  is  P°litics- 
obvious  and  real.  An  excellent  illustration  of  the  means 
by  which  this  pressure  may  be  made  effective  is  afforded 
by  the  tactics  of  the  Municipal  Employees  Association  of 
Great  Britain,  an  organization  whose  members  are  united 
to  influence  municipal  elections  in  favor  of  those  candi- 
dates who  are  ready  to  promise  a  betterment  in  the  con- 
ditions of  civic  employment.  This  body  already  claims 
a  membership  of  about  twelve  thousand,  and,  according 
to  its  officers,  is  growing  steadily  every  year.  "  We  have 
never  been  defeated  by  a  municipal  body  yet,"  truculently 
declares  an  official  circular  of  the  association  ;  "  if  they 
decline  a  request  to-day,  we  are  up  and  at  them  again  to- 
morrow." It  is  not  at  all  difficult  to  see  that  pressure  put 
upon  the  municipal  authorities  by  an  organization  of  this 
sort  might  well  become  prejudicial  to  the  interests  of  econ- 
omy and  labor  discipline;  in  fact,  in  one  of  the  larger 
English  cities  the  situation  has  given  rise  to  the  proposal 
that  all  municipal  employees  shall  be  precluded  from 
voting  at  local  elections.  This  proposal,  it  is  fair  to  say, 
did  not  receive  much  support ;  and,  on  the  whole,  the 
English  borough  councils  have  shown  themselves  able  to 
stand  firm  against  the  pressure  of  this  and  other  organi- 
zations. They  have  rigorously  insisted  upon  the  principle 
of  a  fair  day's  work  for  a  fair  day's  pay,  and  in  this 
attitude  have  received  from  public  opinion  a  support  which 
has  thus  far  proved  entirely  adequate. 

Having  thus  outlined  the  composition  and  functions  of  that  The  organi- 
organ  which  in  English  cities  combines  all  local  legislative  municipal 
and  executive  powers,  and  having  mentioned  the  methods  J 
of  appointment  and  the  respective  tasks  of  those  municipal 
officers  who,  under  the  supervision  of  the  council,  carry  on 


310  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

the  work  of  local  government,  one  may  pass  to  a  very 
brief  consideration  of  the  organization  of  judicial  admin- 
istration in  the  boroughs  ;  for  from  a  very  early  period 
local  government  and  the  local  administration  of  justice 
have  been  closely  associated.  Even  in  the  England  of  the 
Normans  and  Plantagenets  the  borough  was  a  recognized 
unit  of  jurisdiction  ;  and,  as  the  judicial  sj^stem  of  the 
country  developed,  this  peculiar  position  of  the  boroughs 
was  recognized  definitely  in  the  fact  that  the  larger  cities 
were  exempted  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  county  courts 
and  allowed  to  have  their  own  justices.  For  several  cen- 
turies these  borough  justices  formed  an  integral  part  of 
the  municipal  organizations.1  Their  powers  and  functions 
varied  considerably,  to  be  sure,  from  borough  to  borough  ; 
but  in  most  cases  they  possessed,  in  addition  to  their  local 
office  of  dispensing  justice,  various  administrative  duties 
which  were  from  time  to  time  laid  upon  them  by  the 
national  government.2 

Thearrange-       In  1835  the  Municipal  Corporations  Act  strove  to  make 
J^ s  a   clear  distinction  between    judicial    and   administrative 

functions,  and  to  this  end  transferred  to  the  borough 
councils  most  of  the  administrative  tasks  hitherto  laid 
upon  the  borough  justices.  To  the  latter  it  left  only  one 
important  administrative  power,  —  that  of  deciding  upon 
applications  for  liquor  licenses ;  and  even  this  concession 
was  not  intended  by  those  who  framed  the  act.  Although 
the  provisions  of  the  statute  thus  secured  substantial  uni- 
formity throughout  England  in  the  matter  of  restricting 
the  work  of  borough  justices  to  the  administration  of 
borough  justice,  they  did  not  attempt  to  secure  uni- 
formity in  the  amount  of  judicial  jurisdiction  which  the 

1  Further  information  concerning  the  history  of  borough  courts  before  1835 
may  be  readily  found  in  F.  W.  Maitland's  Justice  and  Police  (London,  1885). 

2  C.  A.  Beard,  The  Office  of  Justice  of  the  Peace  in  England  (New  York,  1904). 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  311 

justices  should  possess;    nor    has  subsequent    legislation 
served  to  bring  about  such  conformity.       At  the  present 
time,  therefore,  there  is  great  variation  between  the  powers  Diversity  of 
possessed    by  the    local    tribunals   in  different    classes  of 


boroughs.1     In  some  of  them,  chiefly  the  larger  ones,  the  tionand 

.    .  .  .         .  powers. 

administration  of  justice  is  entirely  divorced  from  that 
of  the  county  in  which  the  borough  is  situated,  in  such 
cases  the  boroughs  having  their  own  justices  and  their  own 
courts  of  quarter  sessions,  from  which  appeals  go  directly 
to  the  national  high  courts  of  justice.  In  such  a  city  the 
court  of  quarter  sessions  is  presided  over  by  a  recorder, 
who  is  appointed  by  the  crown  and  who  must,  at  the  time 
of  his  appointment,  be  a  barrister  of  at  least  five  years' 
standing.  This  officer  is  paid  from  the  funds  of  the 
borough,  holds  office  during  good  behavior,  and  exercises  a 
jurisdiction  corresponding  to  that  possessed  by  the  county 
courts  of  quarter  sessions.2  He  is  assisted  by  a  clerk  of  the 
peace  (or  court  clerk),  who  is  appointed  by  the  borough 
council  and  paid  either  by  fees  or  by  stipend,  as  that  body 
may  determine.  Some  of  the  boroughs  have  also,  in 
accordance  with  permissive  legal  provisions,  replaced  the 
unpaid  justices  of  the  peace  with  stipendiary  magistrates, 
who  are  appointed  by  the  crown,  but  whose  stipends  are 
paid  out  of  the  borough  treasuries. 

On  the  other  hand,  many  boroughs  —  most  of  them,  in- 
deed —  have  no  autonomy  in  the  matter  of  judicial  adminis- 
tration, but  are  regarded,  in  this  respect,  as  parts  of  the 
administrative  county  in  which  they  happen  to  be  situated. 
These  cities  have  no  separate  courts  of  quarter  sessions; 
but  some  of  them  have  received  "commissions  of  the 


1  An  excellent  chapter  on  "The  Organization  of  Justice  in  Municipal  Bor- 
oughs" is  included  in   Redlich  and   Hirst's  Local  Government  in  England, 
Vol.  I.  ch.  x. 

2  Municipal  Corporations  Act,  §§  159-165  passim. 


312  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

peace,"  by  which  their  justices  are  invested  with  a  con- 
siderable range  of  summary  authority  that  includes  much 
of  the  petty  sessional  jurisdiction  which  would  otherwise 
be  exercised  by  the  county  bench.  In  the  boroughs  that 
have  no  such  "commissions"  the  unpaid  justices  enjoy 
only  a  very  limited  power.  In  all  the  boroughs,  it  may 
be  added,  the  justices  of  the  peace  are  appointed  by  the 
crown,  never  by  the  local  authority  and  never  by  popular 
vote. 

As  a  rule,  borough  courts  possess  criminal  jurisdiction 
only ;  but  a  few  boroughs  have  retained  courts  in  which 
minor  civil  suits  may  be  conducted.  Liverpool,  for  in- 
stance, has  its  ancient  Court  of  Passage,  which  is  presided 
over  by  an  assessor  appointed  by  the  city  council  and  paid 
out  of  the  city's  funds,  and  which  possesses  jurisdiction  in 
admiralty  cases  chiefly.  A  few  of  the  boroughs  still  have 
sheriffs,  and  a  few  have  lord-lieutenants ;  but  these  posts 
are  now  wholly  honorary.  Their  incumbents  perform  no 
judicial  or  administrative  functions  whatever ;  neither  of 
them  is  paid ;  and  both  are  expected  to  give  liberally  from 
their  private  purses  to  local  philanthropic  and  social  enter- 
prises. 

Efficiency  of  Despite  its  lack  of  uniformity,  the  administration  of 
justice.  local  justice  in  England  is  prompt,  efficient,  and  econom- 
ical. Since  no  one  either  directly  or  indirectly  connected 
with  it  is  chosen  by  popular  vote,  no  one  need  under  any 
circumstances  trim  his  official  conduct  to  local  political 
exigencies.  Criminal  justice  is  a  branch  of  English  ad- 
ministration which  has  consistently  held  itself  free  from 
the  blight  of  partisanship ;  its  promptness  and  impartial- 
ity have  long  been  the  pride  of  Englishmen  and  the  ad- 
miration of  others.1  From  the  local  courts  the  borough 

1  See,  for  example,  the  tribute  to  English  administration  of  criminal  justice 
in  Hon.  Andrew  D.  White's  Autobiography  (2  vols.,  New  York,  1905),  II.  226. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  313 

police  authorities  have  always  received  stanch  and  vigor- 
ous support,  a  backing  which  has  contributed  greatly  to 
the  effectiveness  of  police  administration  ;  for  these  two 
branches  of  local  government  are  so  intimately  related 
that  any  weakness  in  one  quickly  recoils  upon  the  other. 

Englishmen  have  for  a  long  period  plumed  themselves  Central  con- 
upon  the  degree  of  local  autonomy  which  their  cities 
enjoy  as  compared  with  the  cities  of  Continental  states. 
This  attitude  has  for  the  most  part,  moreover,  been  en- 
tirely justified  by  the  existing  facts ;  for  throughout  the 
major  part  of  modern  English  history  the  central  gov- 
ernment has  left  the  local  authorities  to  regulate  their 
own  affairs  in  their  own  way.  In  the  time  of  the  Stuarts, 
it  is  true,  the  rapid  growth  into  prominence  of  the 
court  of  Star  Chamber  seemed  to  promise  that  the 
regime  of  local  autonomy  would  speedily  become  a  thing 
of  the  past ;  but  the  fall  of  this  administrative  court 
assured,  for  the  time  being  at  any  rate,  the  continuance 
of  a  thoroughly  decentralized  system  of  local  adminis- 
tration.1 Throughout  the  eighteenth  century,  and  well  its  slow  de- 
down  into  the  nineteenth,  the  internal  administration  of 
the  country  was  subordinated  to  the  dictates  of  no  cen- 
tral body  whatsoever.  The  borough  councils  and  the 
justices  of  the  peace  were  allowed  to  exercise  a  free 
hand  in  the  management,  and  more  often  in  the  mis- 
management, of  the  affairs  of  the  municipalities,  subject 
only  to  the  possibility  that  the  courts  of  law  might  at 
any  time  be  invoked  to  curb  their  activities  if  these 
should  exceed  the  powers  conferred  upon  them  by  the 
rules  of  common  law  or  by  the  vast  accumulation  of 
uncoordinated  statutes.  The  control  of  local  police,  the 
making  of  local  provision  for  the  protection  of  the  public 
health,  the  care  of  the  local  poor,  the  building  and 

i  A.  V.  Dicey,  The  Privy  Council  (London,  1887),  ISO. 


314 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


Evil  effects 
of  adminis- 
trative de- 
centrali- 
zation. 


repair  of  local  streets  and  bridges,  together  with  many 
other  matters  of  like  character,  were  intrusted  to  the 
slothful  and  inefficient  hands  of  local  justices  of  the 
peace  ;  and  other  municipal  services  were,  when  provided 
at  all,  controlled  and  supervised  by  the  borough  councils. 
The  first  quarter  of  the  nineteenth  century,  therefore, 
found  England  almost  absolutely  devoid  of  any  admin- 
istrative machinery  whereby  the  central  government 
might  exercise  a  controlling  hand  in  the  conduct  of  mu- 
nicipal affairs.  Only  by  parliamentary  legislation  might 
any  such  control  or  supervision  be  applied.1 

The  great  economic  and  social  changes  that  came  over 
the  land  during  the  period  intervening  between  1775  and 
1825  served  to  render  a  continuance  of  this  decentralized 
policy  a  public  evil.  Most  of  the  services  left  to  be  locally 
managed  were  locally  mismanaged.  The  apathy,  ineffi- 
ciency, and  even  dishonesty  of  the  local  justices  and  corpo- 
ration authorities  became  so  great  a  public  scandal  as  to 
render  the  spur  of  central  control  necessary  in  order  to  se- 
cure an  improvement.  This,  of  course,  meant  a  departure 
from  administrative  traditions  which  many  Englishmen 
regarded  as  sacred ;  but  the  change  seemed  to  be  im- 
peratively demanded  by  the  existence  of  a  situation  that 
could  be  bettered  in  no  other  way.  Particularly  in 
connection  with  the  administration  of  the  poor-law  sys- 
tem was  the  breakdown  apparent ;  for  in  this  sphere 
the  "  era  of  old  Toryism  "  had  been  productive  of  much  in- 
efficiency and  extravagance.  It  was  here  that  reform  was 
most  pressing,  and  here  naturally  that  it  was  first  applied.2 

1  See  above,  pp.  212-213  ;   and,  for  further  information,  Merewether  and 
Stephens's  History  of  the  Boroughs;  WeWs  English  Local  Government,  Vol. 
Ill ;   and  Edward  Porritt's  History  of  the   Unreformed  House   of  Commons 
(2  vols.,  Cambridge,  1903),  Vol.  I. 

2  The  change  in  English  popular  feeling  that  rendered  possible  the  abandon- 
ment of  the  old  policy  of  complete  administrative  decentralization  and  the  intro- 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  315 

The  passing  of  the  great  Poor  Law  of  1834  was  accom-  The  Poor 
panied    by  the    establishment    of    a    central    commission  Lawof183*- 
whose  duty  it    was  to    oversee    the    enforcement  of    the 
statute.1     Although  in  the    prosecution  of  this  work  the 
body  became   highly  unpopular,  it    performed   its   duties 
so  well    that  in   1847,  when    the   desirability    of    having 
central  control  had  come  to  be  generally  recognized,  the 
commission  was  turned  into  a  poor-law  board,2  with  its 
president  a  member  of  the  national  cabinet.     A  quarter- 
century    later,  in    1871,  the    body    was    reorganized,  and 
under    the    title    of    Local    Government    Board    assumed  Theestab- 
supervision  over  a  broad  range  of  municipal  affairs.3     Its  Se  L^cai°£ 
president  became  president    of    the  new  bodv,  and,  like  Government 

J  '  Board  in 

his  predecessor  in  office,  had  a  seat  in  the  national  min-  W7i. 
istry.  By  subsequent  legislation  the  scope  of  its  powers 
as  originally  set  forth  in  1871  has  been  still  farther 
widened,  until  it  is  now  the  most  powerful  of  the  sev- 
eral central  organs  exercising  supervisory  jurisdiction 
over  the  affairs  of  the  municipalities. 

The  movement  which  brought  into  existence  the  other 
Local  Government  Board  did  not  stop  with  the  estab-  authorities, 
lishment  of  this  body  alone.  Central  committees  for 
the  supervision  and  control  of  local  education  were  cre- 
ated, and  these  in  time  were  united  into  a  single  central 
board  under  the  name  of  Board  of  Education.  Likewise 
a  merger  of  two  central  commissions  created  during  the 
first  half  of  the  nineteenth  century  resulted  in  the  es- 
tablishment of  the  Board  of  Agriculture,  which  nowadays 
supervises  the  work  of  the  local  authorities  in  several  im- 
portant matters.  To  some  of  the  existing  central  organs, 
furthermore,  were  allotted  new  items  of  jurisdiction  over 

duction  of  the  new  organs  of  central  control  is  discussed  at  length  in  Professor 
A.  V.  Dicey's  Law  and  Public  Opinion  in  England  (London,  1905). 

i  4-5  William  IV.  c.  76.    2  10-11  Victoria,  c.  109.     8  34-35  Victoria,  c.  70. 


316 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


The  Local 


org.ani- 

zation. 


local  affairs.  The  Home  Office,  for  example,  which  had 
all  but  ceased  to  be  an  active  department  in  the  opening 
years  of  the  nineteenth  century,  was  brought  into  re- 
newed prominence  by  the  transfer  to  it  of  supervision 
over  local  police  administration,  —  to  use  the  term  in  its 
broadest  sense.  The  old  Council  for  Trade  and  Planta- 
tions, also,  having  been  duly  shorn  of  its  original  func- 
tions, was  invested  with  fresh  fields  of  jurisdiction  which 
brought  it,  under  its  new  title  of  Board  of  Trade,  con- 
stantly into  touch  with  the  local  authorities  wherever 
the  latter  undertook  to  provide  public  utilities.  All 
these  branches  of  central  control  have  within  the  last 
three-quarters  of  a  century  undergone  a  development 
that  constitutes  one  of  the  most  thoroughgoing  of  all 
the  changes  which  the  nineteenth  century  brought  about 
in  the  realm  of  English  local  government.1  It  is  there- 
fore proper  that  the  structure  and  functions  of  each  of 
these  organs  should  be  made  clear. 

The  Local  Government  Board  consists,  strictly  speaking, 
°^  a  president,  who  is  a  member  of  the  ministry,  and  of 
several  other  members  of  the  ministry  ex  officio.2  As 
these  other  ministers,  however,  never  take  any  part  what- 
ever in  the  work  of  the  board,  its  jurisdiction  is  exer- 
cised wholly  by  the  president.  This  officer,  who  receives 
a  salary  of  £2000  per  annum,  devotes  his  whole  time  to 
the  work  of  his  office,  in  which  he  is  assisted  by  a  perma- 

1  The  history  of  this  development  is  set  forth  in  Redlich  and  Hirst's  Local 
Government  in  England,  II.  237  ff.;  and  in  M.  R.  Maltbie's  English  Local  Gov- 
ernment of  To-day  (New  York,  1897). 

2  The  organization  and  functions  of  the  Local  Government  Board  may  be 
studied  most  satisfactorily  in  its  published  annual  reports,  and  in  W.  A.  Casson's 
Decisions  of  the  Local  Government  Board  (published  annually)  ;  but  a  general 
discussion  of  the  topic  may  be  found  in  M.  R.  Maltbie's  paper  on  "  The  Local 
Government  Board,"  in  the  Political  Science  Quarterly,  XIII.  232  ff.;  and  in 
J.  Lithiby's  article  on  "  The  Local  Government  Board,"  in  the  Encyclopaedia  of 
Local  Government  Law,  IV.  246-263. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  317 

nent  secretary  and  a  large  staff.  There  is  in  addition  a 
parliamentary  secretary,  who  must  be  a  member  of  Parlia- 
ment and  has  usually  belonged  to  the  House  of  Commons. 
All  the  officers  on  the  regular  staff  of  the  board  are  ap- 
pointed by  the  crown,  usually  on  recommendation  of  the 
president  of  the  board  ;  and  all  are  members  of  the  national 
civil  service. 

The  powers  of  the  Local  Government  Board,  though  its  powers, 
fundamentally  based  on  the  law  of  1871,  which  created  the 
body,  have  been  extended,  altered,  and  rearranged  by  at 
least  one  hundred  different  statutes  during  the  last  thirty- 
five  years,  —  a  mass  of  legislation  which  would,  if  any 
attempt  were  made  to  summarize  its  varied  provisions,  be- 
wilder the  reader  as  effectually  as  Glanvil  was  upset  by  the 
confusa  multitude  of  the  customary  laws  of  the  twelfth 
century.  It  is,  indeed,  a  rare  session  of  Parliament  that 
does  not  see  the  passage  of  some  new  measure  conferring 
some  new  power  upon  the  Local  Government  Board,  or 
imposing  some  new  duty  upon  it,  or  amending  its  proced- 
ure in  some  way.  The  task,  therefore,  of  presenting  in 
comprehensive  yet  concise  form  any  adequate  survey  of  its 
powers  and  functions,  one  that  will  convey  to  the  student 
of  institutions  something  more  than  a  mere  elementary 
notion  of  the  role  which  this  central  organ  has  assumed  in 
the  field  of  local  administration,  is  not  devoid  of  serious 
difficulties.  Of  such  infinite  variety  and  complexity  is  its 
work,  in  short,  that  only  the  higher  officers  of  the  board 
itself  seem  accurately  to  know  the  scope  and  the  limita- 
tions of  its  authority.  It  may  serve  the  interests  of  clear- 
ness, however,  if  its  various  powers  are  roughly  grouped 
under  the  three  main  heads  of  legislative,  administrative, 
and  financial  control. 

The  Local  Government  Board  has  important  sub-legisla-  i.  Legisia- 

.   tive  powers. 

tive  powers,  particularly  with  reference  to  the  system  ol 


318  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

public  poor  relief.1  It  may  issue  to  the  local  poor  author- 
ities a  general  regulation  which  is  binding  throughout  the 
whole  country,  or  an  order  which  affects  a  single  union 
only.  Already  it  has  published  an  enormous  number  of 
such  orders,  and  each  year  marks  a  further  addition  to  the 
The  issuing  list.2  These  regulations  deal  with  all  sorts  of  matters, 
from  general  questions  relating  to  the  methods  of  raising 
the  poor  rates  or  taxes,  to  petty  details  in  regard  to  the 
internal  economy  of  individual  poorhouses.  An  order 
prescribing  the  manner  in  which  guardians  of  the  poor 
shall  be  elected  rubs  shoulders  with  a  rule  fixing  the 
allowance  of  snuff  to  aged  paupers.  Nothing  in  the 
domain  of  public  charity  seems  either  too  large  or  too 
small  to  engage  the  watchful  care  of  the  board's  higher 
officials. 

This  supervision  of  the  local  poor  authorities  is,  how- 
ever, not  the  only  field  in  which  the  legislative  activities 
of  the  Local  Government  Board  are  exercised.  It  is  the 
central  supervising  authority  in  all  matters  relating  to 
local  sanitation  and  care  of  the  public  health.  It  issues 
orders  designed  to  carry  into  actual  effect  the  provisions 
of  the  Public  Health  Acts,3  including  rules  for  the  pre- 
vention of  epidemics,  the  inspection  of  local  milk  supplies, 
and  a  variety  of  like  matters.  It  may  even,  in  some  cases, 
compel  the  borough  council  to  provide  a  public  water 
supply,  or  appoint  medical  officers,  or  establish  a  public 
cemetery,  or  improve  its  drainage  system.  As  general 

1  For  the  history  of  poor-relief  supervision  prior  to  the  establishment  of  the 
Local  Government  Board,  see  Thomas  Mackay  (editor),  History  of  the  English 
Poor  Laws  (3  vols.,  London,  1899)  ;  and  P.  F.  Aschrott,   The  English  Poor- 
Law  System,  Past  and  Present  (London,  1902). 

2  These  regulations  are  brought  together  in  W.  C.  Glen's  Poor-Law  Orders 
(London,  1898). 

8  Particularly  the  act  of  1875  (38-39  Victoria,  c.  65).  See  W.  C.  Glen's 
Laws  of  Public  Health  (London,  1899) ;  and  Sir  John  Simon's  English  Sani- 
tary Institutions  (2d  ed.,  London,  1897). 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  319 

guardian  of  the  public  health,  however,  it  should  be  added, 
the  board's  power  to  issue  orders  is  by  no  means  so  great 
as  in  the  domain  of  public  poor  relief  ;  nor  has  it  in  the 
former  sphere  sought  to  exercise  its  functions  by  the  regu- 
lation of  minute  details. 

A  third  important  legislative  power  of  the  Local  Govern-  Local 
ment   Board   concerns  itself   with  municipal   boundaries.  boundaries* 
With    reference   to    the    poor-law   unions  or  districts  its 
power  to  divide  or  unite  areas,  to  alter  boundaries,  and 
to  create  new  administrative  units  is  of  the  most  extensive 
nature  ;  but  with  reference  to  the  areas  and  boundaries  of 
boroughs  its  authority  is  much  more  restricted  and  its  ac- 
tion must  in  most  cases  have  parliamentary  confirmation.1 

These  legislative    powers  are    so    comprehensive   as  to  importance 
give  the  board  a  wide  range  of  jurisdiction  ;    but,  it  must  board's 


be  borne   in   mind,   they   are    not   exercised    with   entire 

functions. 

discretion.  They  are,  on  the  contrary,  closely  circum- 
scribed in  several  ways.  In  the  first  place,  the  Local 
Government  Board  may  issue  orders  only  upon  the  express 
authority  of  a  parliamentary  statute.  Its  legislative 
powers  are  delegated  to  it  by  Parliament  solely  for  the 
purpose  of  making  sure  that  the  statutes  of  the  realm 
shall  be  accurately  interpreted  and  applied  in  the  local 
jurisdictions.  The  board  acts  merely  as  the  creature  of  Safeguards 
Parliament  ;  hence  its  legislative  authority  may  at  any 
moment  be  contracted  or  rescinded.  In  the  second  place,  P°wer- 
it  must  lay  before  Parliament,  as  soon  as  practicable  after 
promulgation,  a  copy  of  every  general  rule,  order,  or  regu- 
lation that  it  makes  ;  and  its  measure  must,  if  it  comes 
within  the  category  of  "  provisional  orders,"  receive 
specific  confirmation  by  statute.  Thirdly,  the  sovereign 
may,  theoretically  at  any  rate,  disallow  any  order  issued 
by  the  board;  and,  finally,  any  citizen  may  apply  to 

i  See  above,  pp.  227-228. 


320  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

the  High  Court  of  Justice  for  a  writ  of  certiorari,  which 
will  bring  before  this  tribunal  the  question  whether  the 
board  has  exceeded  its  statutory  powers.  On  this  ground 
any  ordinance  of  the  board  may  be  quashed  and  nulli- 
fied by  the  court.  These  various  safeguards  have  proved 
entirely  sufficient  to  keep  the  activities  of  the  board 
within  their  proper  sphere ;  but  even  if  they  were  not 
adequate  there  would  still  remain  the  most  effectual  safe- 
guard of  all,  —  the  responsibility  of  the  president  of  the 
board  to  the  elected  representatives  of  the  people.  A 
member  of  the  ministry,  this  officer  is  accountable  to  the 
House  of  Commons  for  all  his  official  acts,  and  at  the 
proper  time  may  be  compelled  to  find  justification  for 
them  in  the  support  of  a  majority  among  the  members  of 
that  body. 

its  right  of  In  addition  to  the  foregoing  direct  and  positive  powers 
in  the  issuing  of  orders  and  regulations,  the  Local  Govern- 
ment Board  has  important  jurisdiction  in  the  matter  of 
vetoing  or  amending  ordinances  and  by-laws  made  by  the 
municipalities.  Its  approval  must  be  sought  for  all  regula- 
tions framed  by  the  local  poor  authorities,  and  for  all  by- 
laws made  by  a  borough  council  if  they  relate  to  any 
matter  of  sanitation  or  public  health  or  to  any  other  field 
within  the  supervisory  jurisdiction  of  the  board.  Such 
by-laws  the  board  may  disallow  or  amend  either  in  whole 
or  in  part,  if  it  finds  them  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  any 
statute,  —  a  very  salutary  function,  it  may  be  noted,  for 
the  local  authorities  frequently  take  strange  views  as  to 
their  statutory  powers.  This  important  prerogative  has 
further  operated  to  secure  a  closer  approach  to  uniformity 
in  municipal  rules  relating  to  the  public  health ;  for  the 
board  has  adopted  the  practice  of  publishing  model  by- 
laws, which  the  local  authorities  find  it  safe  to  follow 
without  danger  of  disallowance.  It  has  thus  come  about 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  321 

that  a  large  proportion  of  the  by-laws  of  English  boroughs 
have  in  reality  been  drafted  by  the  paid  experts  of  the 
national  government  in  London,  a  fact  that  serves  to 
reduce  to  a  minimum  the  possibility  of  their  being  success- 
fully attacked  before  the  courts. 

This  power  of  disallowance  and  amendment  might  Scope  of  the 
seem,  on  its  face,  to  constitute  a  gross  infringement  of  the  vetopower. 
principle  of  municipal  home  rule,  and  to  aiford  an  oppor- 
tunity for  captious  and  meddlesome  interference  with  the 
acts  of  local  authorities.  Such,  however,  is  not  the  case ; 
for  the  right  of  disallowance  may  be  exercised  only  upon 
the  ground  that  the  municipal  ordinance  is  unlawful,  never 
because  it  appears  to  be  unwise  or  inexpedient.  So  long 
as  the  borough  councils  keep  within  their  legal  powers 
they  are  free  from  central  interference ;  and  when  they 
unconsciously  exceed  their  authority  the  uplifted  hand  of 
the  Local  Government  Board  ought  to  be  welcomed,  not 
resented,  for  not  only  has  this  body  uniformly  done  its 
work  with  judgment,  but  through  its  unremitting  watch- 
fulness it  has  undoubtedly  spared  the  boroughs  much 
troublesome  and  costly  litigation  that  would  otherwise 
have  followed  their  attempts  to  enforce  regulations  which 
their  local  authorities  possessed  no  power  to  provide. 
Notwithstanding  all  this,  the  borough  authorities  are,  on 
the  whole,  unfriendly  to  the  board. 

More  important  than  the   legislative  authority  of   the  2.  Adminis- 

trfttivo 

Local  Government  Board  are  its  administrative  powers,  powers. 
which,  though  considerably  restricted  in  some  fields  of 
local  government,  are  over  the  poor-law  areas  direct  and 
comprehensive,  extending  even  to  the  removal  of  local 
officers.  Save  in  this  field,  however,  and  in  matters  re- 
lating to  sanitation  and  public  health,  it  has  no  very  im- 
portant administrative  powers  with  respect  to  the  boroughs 
or  cities  except  when  the  borough  councils  desire  to  raise 


322  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

funds  by  loan.  Here  its  influence  is  at  once  apparent ; 
for,  as  will  be  seen  a  little  later,  the  boroughs  are  required 
to  secure  its  approval  of  their  borrowing  projects,  and  the 
board,  in  granting  approval,  may  impose  various  condi- 
tions as  to  the  manner  in  which  the  borrowed  funds  may 
be  applied.  If,  for  example,  a  borough  council  decides  to 
adopt  the  permissive  provisions  of  the  acts  relating  to  the 
housing  of  the  working  classes,  and  to  undertake  the  ex- 
propriation of  lands  for  the  erection  of  municipal  tene- 
ments, it  must  get  the  sanction  of  the  Local  Government 
Board  before  it  may  borrow  any  money  for  the  undertak- 
ing. Before  granting  this  permission  the  board  will, 
through  one  or  more  of  its  officers,  conduct  an  inquiry  into 
the  merits  of  the  project,  and,  if  it  gives  its  consent,  will 
usually  require  the  scheme  to  be  carried  out  subject,  in 
many  important  respects,  to  its  further  approval.  It  will 
undertake  to  see,  for  example,  that  the  new  dwellings 
erected  by  the  council  provide  for  the  housing  of  as  many 
persons  as  have  been  displaced,  that  the  buildings  are 
of  proper  character,  and  that  the  various  other  ends 
contemplated  by  the  statutes  are  duly  secured.  Many 
other  so-termed  "  adoptive  acts  "  have  given  broad  powers 
to  the  boroughs,  to  be  exercised  by  them  subject  to  the 
supervision  of  the  Local  Government  Board ;  indeed,  the 
existence  of  this  board  as  a  suitable  supervising  authority 
has  prompted  Parliament  to  intrust  borough  councils  with 
much  authority  which  it  would  probably  never  have 
granted  them  to  be  used  without  supervision.  If  the 
boroughs  ask  for  powers  which  seem  in  general  to  be 
desirable  but  which  might  easily  be  abused,  the  usual  par- 
liamentary practice  has  been  to  grant  the  privileges  asked 
for  but  to  make  the  Local  Government  Board  responsible 
for  seeing  that  they  are  not  misused.  It  should  be  em- 
phatically declared,  however,  that  this  body  is  the  balance- 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  323 

wheel,  and  not  the  engine,  of  local  administration.  It  does 
not  drive  the  machinery  of  borough  government,  for  this 
function  rests  with  the  borough  council ; l  but  it  does  see 
that  the  machinery  is  driven  smoothly  and  with  due  regard 
to  the  principles  underlying  the  legislative  mechanism. 
The  initiative,  the  elaboration  of  projects,  and  the  imme- 
diate supervision  of  all  undertakings  must  be  supplied 
locally ;  it  is  for  the  board  to  keep  the  wheels  in  their 
proper  grooves. 

Where  the  Local  Government  Board  has  no  right  of  Advice  to 
interference,  and  where  its  approval  is  not  asked  by  local 
authorities,  it  may  tender  its  advice  for  what  it  is  worth ; 
and  this  it  frequently  does.  On  the  other  hand,  any  local 
authority  is  entitled  to  seek  counsel  from  the  board  and 
its  expert  staff,  a  privilege  of  which  the  officials  of  the 
boroughs  freely  avail  themselves,  not  infrequently  in  order 
to  find  a  means  of  extricating  themselves  from  serious 
legal  or  administrative  dilemmas.  John  Stuart  Mill  has 
somewhere  remarked  with  great  truth  that  "power  may 
be  localized,  but  knowledge  to  be  most  useful  must  be 
centralized."  At  the  headquarters  of  the  Local  Govern- 
ment Board  is  accumulated  a  vast  fund  of  the  most 
useful  knowledge  concerning  every  phase  of  municipal 
administration ;  a  wealth  of  statistical  and  other  data 
is  there  on  file,  and  some  of  the  best  legal,  financial, 
and  technical  skill  in  England  is  at  hand  to  interpret  it. 
When  the  wording  of  a  new  statute  is  not  clear  to  a  town 
clerk,  when  a  borough  treasurer  gets  his  accounts  tangled 
or  fails  to  agree  with  his  auditors  on  any  point,  when  a 
committee  of  the  borough  council  is  at  a  loss  to  know 
how  it  should  proceed  with  any  project,  —  in  a  word, 
when  any  local  authority  wishes  to  get  expert  and  re- 
liable advice  without  having  to  pay  for  it,  the  first  and 

i  See  above,  pp.  270-281. 


324  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

logical  recourse  is  to  Whitehall.  Whether  the  question 
relates  to  the  extension  of  a  water  service,  or  to  the  pur- 
chase of  supplies  for  a  local  hospital,  or  to  the  distribution 
of  duties  among  officials,  or  to  the  wrangles  of  councillors 
over  some  rule  of  procedure,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Local 
Government  Board  to  give  its  counsel  or  advice  whenever 
it  is  asked  for.  Not  infrequently,  indeed,  the  matter  at 
issue  is  so  complicated  that  the  board  finds  it  necessary 
to  send  one  of  its  experts  to  make  a  personal  inquiry 
before  it  feels  justified  in  giving  its  opinion. 

Advice  to  Not  only  does  the  board  give  advice  to  the  local  au- 
ar  lamen  .  ^orj^jes  concerning  the  motives  and  the  spirit  of  parlia- 
mentary legislation,  but  it  advises  Parliament  itself  in 
regard  to  all  the  important  proposals  that  are  laid  before 
that  body  by  or  on  behalf  of  the  local  powers.  As  has 
already  been  pointed  out  in  connection  with  the  subject 
of  "private  bill"  procedure,  the  opinion  of  the  Local 
Government  Board  must  be  had  by  Parliament  before 
this  body  can  give  final  consideration  to  any  private 
measure  relating  to  local  administration.1  It  is  particu- 
larly the  duty  of  the  board  to  call  the  attention  of  Par- 
liament to  any  features  of  such  measure  that  may  seem 
to  be  objectionable  or  out  of  accord  with  established 
practice.  Parliament  may,  to  be  sure,  pass  a  bill  to 
which  the  board  has  registered  its  strong  objections ; 
but  this  is  not  the  course  which  it  usually  pursues.  On 
the  contrary,  the  national  legislature  has  come  to  lay 
more  and  more  stress  upon  the  board's  reports  concern- 
ing matters  within  its  special  field ;  and  it  is  becoming 
increasingly  difficult  to  procure  the  passage  of  any  such 
measure  in  the  face  of  an  adverse  report.  This  function 
of  the  Local  Government  Board,  though  it  has  not  always 
received  the  emphasis  which  it  deserves,  is  extremely  im- 

1  Above,  p.  266. 


THE   GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  325 

portant  ;  for  not  only  does  it  serve  as  a  restraining  influence 
upon  those  local  authorities  who  are  too  ready  to  seek 
special  powers  and  privileges  by  private  bill,  but  it  en- 
forces greater  care  and  circumspection  upon  those  who 
present  private  measures,  and  it  relieves  the  parliamen- 
tary committees  of  the  imperative  necessity  of  giving  a 
thorough  examination  to  every  such  measure  that  may 
come  before  them. 

In  addition  to  its  legislative  and  administrative  jurisdic-  3.  Financial 
tion,  the  Local  Government  Board  possesses,  in  the  third  p™ 
place,  important  functions  in  the  particular  field  of  super- 
vision over  local  finances.  So  far  as  the  boroughs  are 
concerned,  its  chief  duty  is,  as  we  have  seen,  that  of  ex- 
amining applications  for  permission  to  borrow  money  on 
the  credit  of  the  municipalities.  Parliament  has  granted 
wide  borrowing  powers  to  the  English  boroughs,  —  much 
wider,  indeed,  than  those  which  the  various  state  legisla- 
tures in  America  have  seen  fit  to  give  to  their  civic  authori- 
ties.1 Without  the  special  permission  of  the  central 
government,  it  is  true,  the  English  boroughs  are  practically 
powerless  to  borrow  at  all  ;  but  with  this  permission  there 
is  no  obstacle  in  their  way.  To  the  authorities  of  a 
borough  that  wishes  to  raise  funds  for  any  public  improve- 
ment two  courses  are  open.  One  method  is  to  make  Municipal 
application  for  a  private  act  of  Parliament  which  will  con- 
fer the  power  ;  the  other  is  to  ask  the  Local  Government 
Board  for  permission  to  borrow  under  the  provisions  of 
some  general  statute  that  Parliament  has  already  passed. 
When  the  borrowing  is  to  take  place  on  a  large  scale,  the 
"  private  bill  "  method  is  the  one  more  commonly  followed  ; 
but  for  ordinary  loans  the  boroughs  usually  take  their  proj- 


,  for  example,  the  Public  Health  Act  of  1876,  §  233  ;  the  Municipal  Cor- 
porations Act  of  1882,  §  107  ;  the  Public  Libraries  Act  of  1892,  §  19  ;  and  the 
Local  Government  Act  of  1894,  §  12. 


326  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

ects  to  the  board.  This  body  is  asked  almost  every  year  to 
sanction  loans  for  the  laying  out  and  paving  of  streets,  for 
the  erection  of  borough  buildings,  for  the  construction  or 
the  improvement  of  the  water  service,  the  municipal  gas 
plant,  the  local  markets,  hospitals,  public  baths,  and  so  on. 
In  every  case  the  application  for  borrowing  powers  must  be 
accompanied  by  full  data  as  to  the  purposes  for  which  the 
money  is  required,  the  estimates  of  cost,  the  probable  in- 
creases in  borough  revenue  that  will  result  from  the  ex- 
penditure, the  financial  situation  of  the  municipality,  and 
by  any  other  information  that  may  be  called  for.  All 
such,  returns  are  scrutinized  carefully  by  the  board's 
financial  experts  before  the  application  is  either  granted  or 
refused.  If  the  request  be  granted,  the  board  will  usually 
prescribe  the  terms  under  which  the  loan  may  be  effected, 
including  such  items  as  the  rate  of  interest  to  be  paid,  the 
periods  for  which  the  bonds  may  run,  the  nature  of  the 
sinking  fund  to  be  provided  for  the  repayment  of  the  loan 
on  expiry,  and  every  other  important  incident  connected 
with  the  consummation  of  the  borrowing  project.1 
Relation  of  It  is  through  its  power  to  grant  or  to  refuse  permission 
municipal  to  borrow  money  that  the  Local  Government  Board  exerts 
a  potent  influence  in  the  field  of  municipal  trading.  No 
borough  can  embark  to  any  extent  upon  the  policy  of 
direct  ownership  and  operation  of  its  public  services  with- 
out a  large  initial  expenditure,  and  this  money  must 
invariably  be  raised  by  the  issue  of  municipal  bonds. 
Upon  the  readiness  or  reluctance,  therefore,  which  the 
board  displays  in  granting  permission  to  borrow  for  such 
purposes  depends  in  considerable  degree  the  progress  which 
the  movement  to  municipal  socialism  is  able  to  make  ;  for. 

1  Many  of  these  matters  are  regulated  by  the  Local  Loans  Act  of  1875  (38-39 
Victoria,  c.  83)  and  amending  acts.  See  also  the  article  on  " Loans"  by  W.  J. 
Jeeves  in  the  Encyclopaedia  of  Local  Government  Law,  IV.  187-245. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  327 

though  a  borough  may  go  behind  the  board  and  seek  the 
desired  borrowing  powers  by  private  act,  it  finds  this  pro- 
cedure expensive,  tedious,  and  uncertain.  On  the  whole, 
the  board  has  dealt  generously  with  applications  of  this 
sort,  a  fact  which  may  in  part  account  for  the  rapid  ex- 
tension of  municipal  trade  in  English  cities. 

Another  very  important  aspect  of  the  board's  financial  Audits  of 
powers  is  that  connected  with  the  auditing  of  the  accounts  l^unts 
of  local  authorities.  Through  its  permanent  officials  the 
books  of  nearly  every  local  administrative  body  are  sub- 
jected to  a  thorough  and  independent  examination  at  least 
once  a  year.  The  only  important  area  of  local  government 
(outside  of  London)  to  which  this  auditing  jurisdiction  does 
not  apply  is  the  municipal  borough,  the  books  of  which  are 
examined  by  local  auditors  whose  work  is  not  subject  to 
revision  by  the  experts  of  the  Local  Government  Board.1 
The  extension  of  this  body's  auditing  authority  to  all  the 
accounts  of  the  boroughs  has,  however,  frequently  been 
urged,  and  there  is  little  doubt  that  such  an  extension 
would  prove  advantageous  in  many  ways ;  for,  although 
the  present  system  of  borough  auditing  is  tolerable,  the 
books  of  the  local  treasurers  receive  no  such  careful  scrutiny 
as  is  given  to  the  accounts  of  county  treasurers  by  the  dis- 
trict auditors  of  the  Local  Government  Board.  These 
officers  are  well-paid,  professional  accountants,  with  large 
experience  in  the  examination  of  public  ledgers  and  with, 
no  local  interests  to  favor  or  to  fear ;  hence  the  extension 
of  their  jurisdiction  to  the  boroughs  would  improve  mu- 
nicipal administration  at  a  very  vital  point. 

But  if  the  Local  Government  Board  has  not  been  au-  Returns 

.    ,  ,      from  local 

thorized  to  examine  thoroughly  the  accounts  ot  borough  authorities. 

1  Municipal  Corporations  Act  of  1882,  §§  25-28.  See  also  above,  pp.  304-300. 
For  further  details  relating  to  this  system,  see  the  article  on  "  Accounts  and 
Audit,"  by  A.  0.  Hobbs,  in  the  Encyclopedia  of  Local  Government  Law,  1. 1-111. 


328  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

treasurers,  it  has  been  empowered  to  exact  from  them  full 
and  accurate  returns  of  all  borough  expenditures.  Every 
year  the  town  clerk  of  each  borough  is  required,  on  liabil- 
ity to  a  fine  of  $100,  to  transmit  to  the  board  a  detailed 
statement  of  municipal  revenues  and  disbursements ;  and 
this  statement  he  must  render  in  accordance  with  a  form 
prescribed  by  the  board,  which  is  thus  enabled  to  compare 
items  in  the  accounts  of  different  boroughs.  These  data 
are  of  great  value  to  the  board  ;  for,  though  it  may  not 
disallow  any  expenditure  made  by  the  borough  authorities, 
it  may  call  attention  to  items  which  it  deems  to  be  illegal, 
or  it  may  notify  any  borough  that  it  is,  as  compared  with 
other  places,  paying  excessively  for  some  branch  of  the 
service  which  it  receives.  In  a  word,  it  has  forced  the 
cities  to  keep  their  accounts  in  comparable  form,  and  to 
important  discrepancies  between  the  expenditures  of  dif- 
ferent boroughs  it  has  given  a  degree  of  publicity  which 
such  disparities  rarely  receive  in  American  cities.  The 
board  may  also  at  any  time  call  for  a  special  statement 
or  return  on  any  matter,  and  may  insist  that  this  report  be 
made  to  it  in  proper  form.  Since  requests  for  returns  of 
this  sort  are  often  inspired  by  some  inquisitive  ratepayer 
who  writes  to  the  board  for  information,  they  are  liable  to 
come  suddenly  and  without  warning,  affording  no  time  or 
opportunity  for  juggling  accounts  back  into  favorable 
shape.  The  existence  of  this  contingency  thus  compels 
the  treasurers  and  finance  committees  of  the  various  mu- 
nicipalities to  be  circumspect  at  all  times,  and  not  to  rely 
upon  whipping  everything  into  shape  in  time  for  the 
annual  audit.  From  the  data  gathered  during  the  year 
the  board  prepares  an  annual  abstract  of  local  revenues 
and  expenditures,  which,  after  it  has  been  laid  before 
Parliament,  is  printed  for  public  distribution.  This  re- 
turn is  so  concise,  comprehensive,  and  intelligible  that  it 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  329 

renders  the  study  of  English  municipal  money  matters  one 
of  the  simplest  tasks  ;  whereas,  as  many  have  found  to 
their  discomfiture,  the  comparative  study  of  municipal 
finances  in  any  one  of  the  United  States  is  a  very  difficult 
undertaking.1 

In  the  performance  of  these  varied  functions  it  is,  of  The  board's 
course,  only  natural  that  the  Local  Government  Board  staff' 
should  find  it  necessary  to  employ  a  large  staff  of  officials. 
The  total  number  of  these  now  runs  well  up  into  the  hun- 
dreds, including  sanitary  engineers,  medical  officers,  in- 
spectors of  poorhouses  and  workhouses,  auditors,  legal 
experts,  and  many  similar  officers  embodying  a  high  grade 
of  specialized  skill.  All  these  officials  are  appointed  by 
the  crown  on  recommendation  of  the  president  of  the 
board ;  they  hold  office  during  good  behavior  and  effi- 
ciency ;  they  are  members  of  the  national  civil  service  ;  and 
they  receive  liberal  remuneration.  Secure  in  the  tenure  of 
their  posts,  responsible  to  the  central  government  alone 
and  hence  having  no  local  interests  to  serve,  these  officers 
are  able  to  go  about  their  work  in  an  unbiassed  frame  of 
mind,  and  hence  have  earned  a  general  reputation  for  im- 
partiality and  fearlessness  in  their  recommendations.  There 
is,  on  the  other  hand,  no  doubt  that  the  Local  Government 
Board  is  not  popular  with  the  local  authorities,  and  that 
many  of  these  latter  would  welcome  a  diminution  of  the 
board's  supervisory  jurisdiction.  Were  the  officials  of  the 
board  susceptible  to  partisan  influences,  the  whole  system 
of  central  supervision  would  lose  its  chief  prop,  which  lies 

1  It  is  only  just  to  recognize,  however,  that  the  Bureau  of  the  Census,  in  its 
carefully  prepared  Statistics  of  Cities,  issued  annually,  has  performed  signal 
service  in  the  matter  of  rendering  the  finances  of  the  various  American  munici- 
palities more  readily  comparable.  In  this  connection,  mention  should  also  be 
made  of  the  admirable  compilation  entitled  The  Cost  of  Municipal  Government 
in  Massachusetts  (Boston,  1908),  recently  prepared  by  Charles  F.  Gettemy,  chief 
of  the  Massachusetts  Bureau  of  Statistics  of  Labor. 


330 


GOVERNMENT  OF    EUROPEAN   CITIES 


The  Board 
of  Trade. 


Its  powers. 


primarily  in  the  efficiency  and  integrity  of  the  officers 
who  exercise  the  guiding  authority.  Englishmen  would 
scarcely  tolerate  the  supervision  of  their  local  government 
by  any  officer  who,  like  the  French  prefect,  attempted  to 
combine  the  duties  of  an  administrative  official  with  the 
activities  of  a  party  agent. 

A  second  organ  of  central  control  is  the  Board  of  Trade, 
which,  like  the  body  just  described,  consists  of  a  president 
(who  is  a  member  of  the  national  ministry)  and  the  usual 
secretaries.1  Strictly  speaking,  the  Board  of  Trade  has  no 
supervisory  jurisdiction  over  any  of  the  municipal  authori- 
ties ;  but  as  a  matter  of  fact  it  is  constantly  brought  into 
contact  with  them  through  the  exercise  of  its  powers  over 
public  services.  In  general  it  may  be  said  that  this  body 
has  been  authorized  by  a  number  of  different  statutes  to 
grant  provisional  orders  empowering  the  borough  councils 
to  undertake  the  direct  ownership  or  operation  of  public 
utilities.  If  the  council  of  an  English  city  should  decide 
to  enter  the  field  of  municipal  trading,  or  to  extend  its  ex- 
isting operations  in  this  field,  it  must  obtain  authority 
either  by  private  act  of  Parliament  or  by  application  to 
the  Board  of  Trade  for  permission  to  use  powers  that  have 
been  conferred  by  general  statutes.  If  the  project  is  large 
and  comprehensive,  involving  the  taking  over  of  large  gas 
plants  or  of  extensive  w^ater  services  owned  and  operated 
by  private  interests,  the  council  usually  seeks  its  powers 
by  applying  to  Parliament  for  special  legislation ;  but  be- 
fore Parliament  will  grant  such  legislation  it  must  have 
the  opinion  of  the  Board  of  Trade,  and  this  opinion  carries 
considerable  weight  for  or  against  the  success  of  the  meas- 

1  Most  of  the  statutory  provisions  relating  to  this  body  may  be  found  in  the 
Board  of  Trade  Acts  of  1861  and  1867  (24-25  Victoria,  c.  47  ;  and  30-31  Vic- 
toria, c.  72).  A  summary  of  its  functions  is  given  in  Sir  W.  K.  Anson's  Law 
and  Custom  of  the  Constitution  (2  vols.,  Oxford,  1896),  II.  188-193.  Only  a 
few  of  these  functions  relate  to  municipal  matters. 


THE   GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  331 

ure.1  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  project  is  not  compre- 
hensive, —  if,  for  example,  it  relates  only  to  the  extension 
of  a  gas,  tramways,  or  electric  service  that  is  already  owned 
and  operated  by  the  municipal  authorities, — the  city  council 
commonly  applies  to  the  Board  of  Trade  for  a  provisional 
order  enabling  the  municipality  to  proceed  with  its  proj- 
ect. Before  granting  this  permission  the  Board  of  Trade 
will  examine  carefully  the  local  conditions,  including  such 
matters  as  the  need  for  the  proposed  extension,  the  practica- 
bility of  the  council's  plans,  the  private  interests  to  be 
affected,  the  financial  situation  of  the  borough,  and  so  on, 
the  inquiry  ordinarily  involving  an  investigation  on  the 
ground  by  one  or  more  engineers  or  other  expert  officials. 
If,  upon  examination,  the  board  proves  to  be  favorably 
disposed  toward  the  council's  application,  it  issues  a  pro- 
visional order,  which,  like  the  orders  of  the  Local  Gov- 
ernment Board,  is  subsequently  confirmed  by  an  act  of 
Parliament. 

Having  an  efficient  supervising  organ  in  the  Board   of  its  relation 
Trade,  Parliament  has  been  disposed  to  grant  larger  powers  grj^tsof 
to  the  local  authorities  in  the  matter  of  municipal  trading  P°wer- 
than  it  would  otherwise   have    been    willing   to    bestow. 
By  the  Tramways  Act  of  1870  and  the  Light  Railways  Act 
of  1896,2  for  example,  it  gave  them  large  and  comprehen- 
sive freedom  in  the  matter  of  constructing  new  lines  of 
street  railways  and  of  expropriating  lines  owned  by  pri- 
vate companies ;  but  it  also  stipulated  that  the  municipal 
councils  might  not  avail  themselves  of   the  powers  thus 
conferred  except  with  the  consent  of  the  Board  of  Trade, 
and  then  only  in  accordance  with  such  terms  as  this  board, 
in  issuing  its  permission,  might  see  fit  to  prescribe.    Under 

1  Cf.  above,  p.  266. 

2  Useful  commentaries  on  this  later  law  are  S.  W.  Brice's  Law  relating  to 
Tramways  and  Light  Railways   (London,  1898),   and  Evans  Austin's  Light 
Railways  Act  of  1896  (London,  1899). 


332  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

the  provisions  of  these  two  statutes  the  various  local  au- 
thorities of  the  United  Kingdom  now  own  somewhat 
fewer  than  two  hundred  tramway  systems,  and  directly 
operate  considerably  more  than  half  of  this  number.1  In 
some  cases  they  have  obtained  their  privileges  by  private 
act  of  Parliament ;  but  in  the  great  majority  of  instances 
they  have  secured  them  from  the  Board  of  Trade  under 
the  terms  of  the  general  statutes  named.  Not  only,  there- 
fore, does  the  system  permit  Parliament  to  grant  compre- 
hensive powers  with  little  danger  that  they  will  be  abused 
by  the  local  authorities,  but  it  serves  to  establish  a  rela- 
tion between  the  powers  of  the  municipal  councils  and  the 
merits  and  urgency  of  their  respective  projects  ;  and  it 
gives  to  the  English  boroughs  a  reasonable  and  even  a 
liberal  degree  of  freedom  in  determining  what  public 
services  they  will  own  and  operate  directly.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  provides  a  restraining  hand  upon  those  local  au- 
thorities who,  without  due  consideration  of  the  financial 
and  physical  problems  involved,  sometimes  show  them- 
selves over-zealous  in  the  cause  of  municipal  exploitation. 
The  board's  The  Board  of  Trade,  like  the  Local  Government  Board, 

staff. 

has  its  staff  of  expert  officers,  engineers,  accountants,  and 
legal  advisers.  These  officers  conduct  the  local  inquiries 
into  the  merits  of  applications,  whether  the  requests  come 
from  municipal  authorities  or  from  private  operating  com- 
panies ;  and  upon  the  reports  made  by  them  the  board 
usually  bases  its  decisions.  A  high  grade  of  technical 
skill,  sound  judgment,  and  of  thorough  impartiality  as 
between  the  interests  involved  are  essential  factors  in  the 
proper  performance  of  their  duties ;  and  these  qualities 
most  of  them  possess.  With  the  increasing  demand  for 
more  elaborate  and  more  complicated  public  utilities,  the 

1  Municipal  Year  Book  of  the   United  Kingdom,  1906.     The  board  issues 
each  year  a  Return  of  Street  and  Eoad  Tramways  authorised  by  Parliament,  etc. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  333 

work  of  the  board  has  grown  rapidly  in  recent  years.  Its 
annual  reports  bear  testimony  not  only  to  the  important 
role  which  it  has  come  to  assume  on  the  economic  side 
of  municipal  administration,  but  also  to  the  care  and 
thoroughness  with  which  its  staff  performs  the  tasks 
allotted  to  it. 

A  third  important  organ  of  central  supervision  is  that  The  Home 
commonly  known  as  the  Home  Office,  the  chief  officer  of 
which  is  the  home  secretary,  likewise  a  member  of  the 
cabinet.1  The  Home  Office  is  brought  into  contact  with 
the  borough  authorities  of  England  chiefly  through  its 
power  of  supervising,  in  a  general  way,  the  exercise  of 
police  functions  by  the  local  administrations  of  the  land. 
With  respect  to  London  the  authority  of  the  Home  Office 
in  police  matters  is  direct,  for  the  metropolitan  police 
system  is,  as  will  be  seen  later,  immediately  under  the 
home  secretary's  control ; 2  but  with  respect  to  the  police 
administration  of  the  ordinary  boroughs  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  Home  Office  is  supervisory  only,  the  direct  control 
being  here  vested  in  a  local  authority,  the  watch  com- 
mittee of  the  borough  council.  Save  within  the  limits  of 
the  Metropolitan  Police  District  of  London,  police  power 
in  English  cities  is  regarded  as  distinctly  a  branch  of 
municipal  administration  over  which  the  central  govern- 
ment has  a  very  limited  right  of  inspection  and  super- 
vision ;  and,  in  obedience  to  the  well-known  feelings  of 
Englishmen  on  this  point,  the  power  of  the  central  author- 
ities to  interfere  in  matters  affecting  the  management  of 
the  local  police  has  been  consistently  kept  at  a  minimum. 

Direct  control  and  conduct  of  borough  police  adminis-  Office  to 

municipal 

tration  is,  then,  in  the  hands  of  the  borough  watch  com-  police. 

1  The  general  duties  of  this  office  are  set  forth  in  Anson's  Law  and  Custom 
of  the  Constitution,  II.  227-240. 

2  Below,  p.  377. 


334 

mittee,  a  body  selected  by  the  borough  council  from 
among  the  ranks  of  its  own  members.1  This  committee 
determines  the  size  of  the  local  police  force,  appoints  the 
chief  constable,  elaborates  the  necessary  rules  for  the 
governance  and  discipline  of  the  force,  and  exercises  every 
other  incident  of  immediate  administration.  Somewhat 
more  than  a  half-century  ago,  however,  it  was  provided 
by  law  that  a  share  in  the  cost  of  maintaining  borough 
police  should  be  borne  by  the  national  government 
wherever  it  should  appear  that  the  police  establishment 
had  been  "  maintained  in  a  state  of  efficiency  in  point  of 
numbers  and  discipline " ; 2  and  to  this  provision  the 
central  authorities  owe  their  powers  of  police  inspection 
and  supervision.  They  have  the  right  to  insist  that 
borough  police  establishments  shall  be  "  maintained  in  a 
state  of  efficiency  "  upon  pain  of  having  the  national  sub- 
vention withheld ;  but  they  have  no  positive  authority  in 
relation  to  either  the  organization  or  the  discipline  of  local 
police. 

The  "in-  For  performing  the  work  of  inspection  the  Home  Office 

constabu-      maintains  a  corps  of  officials  known  as  "  inspectors  of  con- 
lary."  stabulary,"  whose  duty  it   is  to  make  periodic  visits  to 

the  various  boroughs  and  other  police  areas  of  the  country, 
in  each  of  them  to  prosecute  a  more  or  less  careful  inquiry 
into  the  efficiency  of  the  local  police  establishment,  and 
in  each  case  to  make  a  report  to  the  Home  Office.  If  this 
report  is  satisfactory,  the  local  authorities  receive  from 
the  national  government  a  subvention  or  allowance  that 
amounts  in  round  figures  to  one-half  of  the  local  police 
expenditure  for  the  year.8  If  the  report  is  unfavorable, 

1  See  above,  p.  289. 

2  The  County  and  Borough  Police  Act  of  1866  (19-20  Victoria,  c.  69),  §  16. 

8  The  subvention  covers  one-half  the  cost  of  police  salaries  and  clothing,  and 
makes  an  allowance  for  police  pensions.  Further  details  concerning  it  may  be 
conveniently  found  in  Redlich  and  Hirst's  Local  Government  in  England,  II. 
310-312. 


THE   GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  335 

this  subvention  is  withheld,  or  is  suspended  until  the  local 
authorities  bring  their  police  system  up  to  the  required 
standard.  The  inspectors  have  no  right  to  order  any 
changes  to  be  made  or  to  remove  any  local  police  official; 
their  sole  task  is  to  inspect  and  to  report  the  results  of 
their  inspection.1  Usually,  however,  if  one  may  believe 
the  local  police  officials,  the  scrutiny  is  not  very  thorough: 
unless  a  police  system  falls  very  plainly  below  a  reason- 
able standard,  it  is  likely  to  pass  muster.  At  any  rate,  no 
borough  has  lost  its  annual  subvention  in  recent  years, 
although  on  one  or  two  occasions  the  Home  Office  has 
given  warning  to  a  municipality  that  the  grant  would 
be  withheld  unless  certain  shortcomings  were  promptly 
remedied. 

This  system  of  central  police  inspection  is  a  compro-  Results  of 
mise  that  has  resulted  on  the  one  hand  from  the  English  systemf 1S 
passion  for  local  autonomy,  and  on  the  other  from  the 
well-established  fact  that  complete  decentralization  of 
borough  police  administration  is  liable  to  bring  ineffi- 
ciency and  even  corruption  in  its  train.  Central  domina- 
tion over  local  police  as  it  exists  in  Prussia  would  not 
be  brooked  in  England ;  on  the  other  hand,  the  majority 
of  Englishmen  seem  to  have  no  desire  to  allow  local 
liberty  to  develop  into  local  license,  as  it  has  done  in 
many  municipalities  of  the  United  States.  The  national 
government  of  England  desires  that  borough  police  ad- 
ministration shall  be  reasonably  uniform  and  reasonably 
efficient,  and  for  this  it  is  willing  to  pay  liberally ;  but 
if  the  local  authorities  prefer  to  content  themselves  with 
a  police  system  that  is  below  the  Home  Office  standard, 
and  incidentally  to  forego  the  government  subvention,  there 

1  These  reports  are  printed  annually  under  the  title  "  Reports  of  Inspec- 
tors of  Constabulary,  —  Counties  and  Boroughs."  An  interesting  discussion  of 
the  subject  may  be  had  in  the  article  on  "  Police,"  by  H.  B.  Simpson,  in  the 
Encyclopaedia  of  Local  Government  Law,  V.  146-177. 


336 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


National 
subven- 
tion to 
municipal 
police. 


is  nothing,  so  far  as  the  powers  of  the  central  office  are 
concerned,  to  prevent  their  doing  so.  There  is,  however, 
an  effective  check  upon  anything  of  this  sort  in  the  abso- 
lute certainty  that  any  watch  committee  which  permitted 
local  police  conditions  to  become  such  as  to  cause  the 
subvention  to  be  withheld  would  bring  down  upon  itself 
a  storm  of  condemnation  from  the  ratepayers  of  the 
borough.  In  other  words,  it  is  much  more  economical  to 
maintain  an  efficient  police  system  with  the  national 
treasury  bearing  half  the  cost  than  to  maintain  an  infe- 
rior service  with  the  cost  falling  entirely  on  the  local  rate- 
payers. The  Home  Office  has  therefore  only  to  insist 
upon  any  reasonable  improvement  that  it  desires ;  the 
local  response  is  usually  ready  enough. 

This  system  of  national  subvention  is  obviously  a 
source  of  heavy  expense  to  the  central  government,  for 
the  total  allowance  paid  to  all  the  local  authorities 
amounts  to  many  millions  of  dollars  per  annum.  Every 
year,  moreover,  with  the  steady  growth  of  large  cities  and 
the  increase  in  size  and  expensiveness  of  local  police 
forces,  the  amount  looms  larger,  and  this  in  the  face  of 
ever  increasing  demands  upon  the  national  exchequer  for 
other  and  perhaps  more  distinctly  national  purposes.  As 
a  result  of  these  payments  the  police  systems  of  English 
cities  have  undoubtedly  maintained  a  fair  standard,  as 
European  standards  of  police  efficiency  go,  but  not  so 
high  a  one  as  might  be  expected  in  view  of  the  enor- 
mous leverage  which  the  Home  Office  exerts  in  raising 
the  general  plane  ;  for  there  is  no  disguising  the  truth 
that  the  powers  of  this  office,  though  amply  sugar-coated 
for  the  benefit  of  local  autonomists,  constitute  a  very 
effectual  form  of  direct  administrative  compulsion.  The 
fact  is,  however,  that  the  Home  Office  inspectors  have 
not  set  themselves  to  screw  up  the  standard  year  by 


337 

year,  but  have  merely  satisfied  themselves  that  all  things 
connected  with  the  civic  police  administrations  were  satis- 
factory enough  to  pass  muster.  The  system  gives  the 
citizens  an  assurance  that  their  management  of  the  local 
police  is  not  clearly  inefficient ;  it  does  not  afford  them 
any  further  guarantee.  The  periodical  inspection  has 
become  a  safeguard  rather  than  a  spur  ;  though  it  may 
scarcely  be  termed  cursory,  it  has  by  no  means  exhausted 
its  possibilities. 

Two  other  organs  of  central  government  that  come  other 
into  contact  with  local  authorities  in  a  supervisory  way  central  su- 
are  the  Board  of  Agriculture1  and  the  Board  of  Educa-  Pervision- 
tion.2  The  former  body  exercises  sundry  powers  of 
supervision  over  the  work  of  municipal  officials,  so  far  as 
this  work  concerns  itself  with  the  prevention  of  epidemics 
among  animals,  the  destruction  of  insects,  the  preserva- 
tion of  local  fisheries,  and  so  forth.  It  has  power  to  en- 
force the  provisions  of  various  acts  of  Parliament  relating 
to  such  matters,  and  to  this  end  it  may  issue  orders  to  local 
authorities.  •  It  maintains  its  staff  of  expert  officials,  and 
in  all  matters  that  come  within  its  particular  sphere  its 
counsel  and  advice  are  at  the  disposal  of  the  borough 
authorities.  The  Board  of  Education  has  charge  of  the 
whole  matter  of  school  inspection,  and  of  the  distribu- 
tion of  those  sums  of  money  which  the  national  govern- 
ment annually  pays  to  the  municipalities  for  the  support 
of  secondary  education.  Through  its  officials  it  inspects 
all  schools  that  receive  public  funds,  approves  plans  for 
school  buildings,  and  prescribes  the  general  curriculum ;  but 
it  has  no  right  to  interfere  directly  in  the  work  of  immediate 
school  administration.  All  that  it  can  do  in  this  direction 

1  Board  of  Agriculture  Act  of  1888  (52-53  Victoria,  c.  30). 

2  Board  of  Education  Act  of  1899  (62-63  Victoria,  c.  33),  and  Education  Act 
of  1902  (2  Edward  VII.  c.  42). 


338  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

is  to  come  into  general  supervisory  contact  with  the  Edu- 
cation Committee  of  the  council,  which  in  every  borough 
has  immediate  control  of  the  local  school  system. 
English  and  If  the  activities  and  influence  of  all  these  various  cen- 
methodsof  tral  boards  be  considered  together,  it  will  be  apparent 
that  England  has  during  the  last  century  made  consider- 
able progress  along  the  paths  that  lead  logically  to  ad- 
ministrative centralization  as  seen  in  various  continental 
states.  Yet  the  system  of  national  supervision  as  it  now 
exists  falls  far  short  of  the  stage  reached  by  the  contem- 
porary administrative  arrangements  of  either  France  or 
Prussia.  To  the  various  central  organs  Parliament  has 
doled  out  authority  very  grudgingly,  giving  but  a  little  at 
a  time  and  usually  only  a  tithe  of  what  is  asked  for.  It 
will  have  been  noticed,  furthermore,  that  there  is  in  Eng- 
land no  concentration  of  supervisory  jurisdiction  in  the 
hands  of  a  single  officer  or  in  a  single  department  of  the 
national  government.  In  the  English  system  of  adminis- 
tration there  is  no  branch  that  in  any  way  corresponds 
either  in  power  or  in  influence  to  the  French  Ministere  de 
1'Interieur  or  to  the  Prussian  Ministerium  des  Innern. 
Much  of  the  authority  which  these  departments  possess 
is  doubtless  exercised  in  England  as  truly  as  on  the  con- 
tinent ;  but  instead  of  being  concentrated  in  any  one 
place  it  is  scattered  about  in  various  hands.  One  finds  in 
England,  therefore,  not  only  decentralization  of  local  ad- 
ministrative authority,  but  diffusion  of  central  supervisory 
jurisdiction  as  well.  It  may  also  be  noted  that  the  Eng- 
lish system  provides  no  official  whose  task  it  is  to  serve  as 
a  link  between  the  local  and  the  central  authorities.  It 
has  no  officer  corresponding  to  the  French  prefet  or  the 
Prussian  Regierungsprasident.  If  the  state  deals  with  the 
municipality,  it  does  so  directly  and  without  assistance 
from  any  intermediate  authority.  All  this  has  naturally 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  339 

served  to  give  the  English  system  great  flexibility,  as  well 
as  to  render  much  less  facile  the  development  of  bureau- 
cratic methods.  The  effect  of  the  whole  procedure  has  been 
to  stimulate  the  local  authorities  to  the  proper  discharge  of 
their  functions,  without  at  the  same  time  involving  any 
radical  departure  from  the  traditional  policy  of  municipal 
autonomy.1 

In  any  discussion  of  English  city  government,  however  The  govern- 
elementary,  some  special  consideration  must  be  given  to  metropolis6 
one  very  important  urban  area,  the  metropolis,  which  has 
a  system  of  local  government  quite  unlike  that  of  the 
ordinary  borough.  In  several  countries  besides  England, 
indeed,  it  has  seemed  desirable,  for  some  reason  or  other, 
to  provide  the  national  capital  with  a  framework  of  local 
administration  quite  different  from  that  in  vogue  in  the  rest 
of  the  cities  of  the  land.  Thus  the  administration  of  Paris 
differs  from  that  of  the  ordinary  French  commune,  and 
the  government  of  Washington  is  wholly  unlike  that  of 
the  other  cities  of  the  United  States.  Of  this  individual- 
ity in  point  of  local  management  London  furnishes  a  con- 
spicuous example;  for,  being  by  far  the  largest  of  English 
cities,  as  well  as  the  national  capital,  it  has  local  problems 
that  are  peculiarly  comprehensive  and  complicated,  and 
hence  its  administration  departs  widely  from  the  regular 
English  type.  This  is  not,  however,  because  the  national 
government  of  England,  like  that  of  the  republic  across 
the  channel,  regards  as  axiomatic  the  principle  that  the 
metropolis  should  be  held  with  a  tighter  rein  than  the 
other  municipalities.  Unlike  Paris,  London  has  assumed  WhyLondon 
no  place  in  history  as  the  cradle  of  national  discord ;  and  s^temPof  **' 
although  its  role  in  the  contemporary  political  life  of  the 
nation  is  highly  important,  it  is  very  far  from  being  domi- 

1  See  the  interesting  chapter  entitled  "  A  Fundamental  Antithesis,"  in  Red- 
lich  and  Hirst's  Local  Government  in  England,  I.  10-43. 


340  GOVERNMENT  OF   EUROPEAN   CITIES 

nant.  The  peculiar  system  of  local  government  which 
has  been  applied  to  London  is  not,  therefore,  the  outcome 
of  any  direct  policy  of  strict  control ;  it  is  rather  a  result 
of  the  nation's  disinclination  to  deal  with  a  huge  problem 
at  the  appropriate  time  and  in  a  comprehensive  way. 
When  the  Municipal  Corporations  Act  of  1835  was  framed, 
the  question  of  reorganizing  the  administration  of  London 
was  regarded  as  a  separate  matter,  not  to  be  dealt  with 
in  a  general  enactment  relating  to  the  boroughs  as  a  whole. 
London  was  therefore  left  outside  the  pale  of  reform,  on 
the  understanding  that  her  case  would  receive  due  atten- 
tion from  Parliament  in  the  form  of  special  legislation. 
This  special  legislation  was  long  delayed,  however  ;  for 
not  until  a  full  half-century  had  passed  did  any  substantial 
measures  for  the  reform  of  metropolitan  administration 
make  their  appearance  on  the  statute-books. 
The  areas  of  Before  one  can  speak  intelligently  of  contemporary 
London  government  one  should  try  to  make  clear  just 
what  "  London  "  is ;  for  the  conglomeration  of  population 
to  which  this  term  applies  is  not,  like  Paris,  Berlin,  or 
New  York,  a  single  unit  or  area  of  local  administration. 
First  of  all,  there  is  the  "  City  of  London,"  the  ancient 
municipality  and  the  core  of  the  modern  metropolis. 
This  unit  comprises  an  extent  of  about  one  square  mile, 
and  has  a  permanent  population  of  about  thirty  thousand 
persons.  Constituting,  as  it  does,  the  financial  centre  of 
the  whole  metropolitan  area,  the  "city"  is  the  daily  resort 
of  many  hundreds  of  thousands  whose  residences  are  in 
the  suburban  boroughs.  Then  there  is  the  "  County  of 
London,"  an  administrative  municipality,  with  an  area 
of  about  one  hundred  and  twenty  square  miles  and  a 
population  of  somewhat  less  than  five  millions.  This 
tract  ranges  itself  in  a  somewhat  circular  form  round  the 
old  city,  and  for  most  purposes  may  be  looked  upon  as 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  341 

the  real  municipal  London.  Besides  these  two  units  there 
are  more  comprehensive  London  areas,  chief  among  which 
is  the  London  Metropolitan  Police  District,  which  includes 
all  the  parishes  within  fifteen  miles  of  Charing  Cross. 
This  district  comprises  slightly  less  than  seven  hundred 
square  miles,  and  contains  a  population  that  does  not  fall 
far  below  the  seven  million  mark.  It  does  not,  however, 
include  the  old  city,  which  in  the  matter  of  police  adminis- 
tration has  been  left  with  its  ancient  autonomy.  In  form 
of  administration  these  three  areas  are  separate  and  inde- 
pendent ;  but  all  three  systems  taken  together  make  up 
the  government  of  London,  the  metropolis. 

The  City  of  London  presents  the  only  important  sur-  The  city  of 
vival  of  the  "  unreformed  corporation."  From  the  time  of 
Alfred  the  Great  down  to  the  present  day  this  municipal 
unit  has  been  especially  favored  by  the  national  author- 
ities ;  and  even  through  the  political  storm  and  stress  of 
the  nineteenth  century  the  organization  and  privileges  of 
the  city  corporation  passed  almost  entirely  unscathed.1 
For  almost  all  administrative  purposes  the  "  corpora- 
tion of  the  City  of  London "  is  the  sole  local  authority 
within  the  rather  narrow  civic  limits ;  except  in  one  or 
two  matters,  neither  the  authorities  of  the  county  nor 
the  officers  of  the  Metropolitan  Police  District  have  any 
jurisdiction  within  the  confines  of  the  city.  The  "  cor- 
poration "  is  made  up  of  the  freemen  of  the  city,  — 
that  is  to  say,  of  those  who  have  been  regularly  admitted 
to  the  freedom  of  the  city  and  enrolled  as  citizens. 
There  was  a  time  when  the  category  of  freemen  was 
strictly  limited ;  but  now  any  ratepayer  within  the  city 
may  obtain  enrolment  as  a  freeman  on  payment  of  a 

1  On  the  early  administrative  history  of  London,  material  may  be  had  in  J. 
F.  B.  Firth's  Municipal  London  (London,  1876),  and  G.  L.  Gomme's  Gover- 
nance of  London  (London,  1907}. 


342  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

one-guinea    fee,  and  the  same  privilege    extends  to  such 
persons  as  are  qualified  to  vote  at  parliamentary  elections 
within  the  city.     The  freemen  no  longer,  therefore,  form  a 
close  corporation  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  term. 
The  city  The    corporation    exercises    its    administrative    powers 

through  the  lord  mayor  and  three  councils,  which  are  called 
respectively  the  Court  of  Aldermen,  the  Court  of  Common 
Council,  and  the  Court  of  Common  Hall.1  The  first  of 
the  three,  the  Court  of  Aldermen,  consists  of  twenty- 
seven  members,  —  the  lord  mayor,  and  twenty-six  alder- 
men representing  the  twenty-six  wards  into  which  the 
city  is  divided.  These  aldermen  are  elected  by  the  free- 
men, and  hold  office  for  life ;  but  as  a  body  they  have  but 
one  or  two  powers,  and  these  are  of  little  consequence. 
The  Court  of  Common  Council  is  the  chief  legislative  and 
executive  body  of  the  city.  It  is  made  up  of  twenty-six 
aldermen  and  two  hundred  and  six  common  councillors, 
who  are  elected  annually  from  the  different  wards  of  the 
city  in  unequal  proportions,  some  wards  having  a  much 
larger  representation  than  others.  The  body  has  all  the 
powers  that  ordinarily  appertain  to  a  borough  council :  it 
frames  the  usual  city  ordinances,  appoints  nearly  all  the 
city  officials,  and  manages  such  services  as  street  paving 
and  repairing,  sewerage  (except  main  drainage),  lighting, 
police,  and  so  on.  It  does  not  elect  the  lord  mayor,  how- 
ever. This  prerogative  belongs  jointly  to  the  aldermen 
and  the  Court  of  Common  Hall,  which  is  made  up  of 
the  members  of  all  the  "  livery  companies  "  of  London,  its 
nominal  membership  being  therefore  about  nine  thousand. 
It  meets  only  twice  a  year,  and  its  only  important  func- 

1  The  best  account  of  the  composition  and  powers  of  these  bodies  is  that 
given  in  the  Report  of  the  Royal  Commission  on  the  Amalgamation  of  London 
(1894),  Appendix  iii.  See  also  the  earlier  Report  of  the  Commissioners  ap- 
pointed to  inquire  into  the  Existing  State  of  the  Corporation  of  the  City  of  Lon- 
don (1854). 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  343 

tion  is  to  elect  the  lord  mayor,  the  city  sheriffs,  and  the 
chamberlain  or  city  treasurer. 

The  lord  mayor  of  London  is  chosen  annually  from  The  office  of 
among  the  aldermen  who  have  served  in  the  office  of  lordmayor> 
sheriff.  From  this  list  the  Court  of  Common  Hall  selects 
two  names  and  presents  them  to  the  Court  of  Aldermen, 
which  as  a  matter  of  custom  invariably  selects  the  senior 
of  the  two  for  its  confirmation.  Election  to  this  position 
is  thus  little  more  than  a  form ;  for  only  on  the  rarest 
occasions  is  there  any  departure  from  the  rule  of  taking 
the  qualified  aldermen  in  order  of  their  seniority.  The  post 
of  lord  mayor  is  almost  purely  honorary ;  for  the  in- 
cumbent has  no  special  administrative  powers,  the  real 
work  of  administration  being  performed  by  the  various 
committees  of  the  common  council.  The  lord  mayor  is, 
however,  expected  to  take  a  prominent  part  in  the  dis- 
pensing of  official  hospitality,  to  provide  the  lord  mayor's 
annual  banquet  and  annual  pageant,  and  to  entertain  all 
distinguished  visitors  to  the  city.  Out  of  the  large  rev- 
enues of  the  corporation  he  receives  a  salary  of  $50,000 
per  annum,  together  with  the  use  of  the  Mansion  House 
as  an  official  residence.  A  lord  mayor  who  performs  what 
is  generally  expected  of  him  in  the  way  of  entertainment 
finds  it  necessary  to  spend  perhaps  double  his  stipend. 

The    administration  of  the  city  is  thus  an  interesting  An  anti- 
survival    from  the    days  of  borough  government  by  close  efficient 
corporations.     It  is  cumbrous  and  complicated,  affording  8ystem- 
no  concentration  of  powers  and  so  giving  the  ratepayers 
little  or  no  opportunity  to  fix  responsibility  upon  any  one 
in    public    office.     Nevertheless,    the    city  has    been    well 
governed.     Its  officials  are  competent ;  its  public  services 
are  efficiently  managed ;  its  revenues  are  large ;  its  debt  is 
small ;  and  its  ratepayers  seem,  in  the  main,  to  be  entirely 
satisfied  that  the  system  shall  remain  as  it  stands  without 


344 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


The  County 
of  London. 


Origini. 


The  metro- 
politan 
Board  of 
Works. 


any  important  changes.  So  long,  therefore,  as  the  admin- 
istration is  satisfactory  to  those  within  there  seems  to  be 
little  probability  that  any  reorganization  will  be  dictated 
from  without. 

The  government  of  the  "  city  "  is  but  a  small  factor  in 
the  administration  of  metropolitan  London  as  a  whole. 
Very  much  more  important  as  an  area  of  local  rule  is  the 
County  of  London,  of  which  the  dominating  organ  is  the 
London  County  Council.  As  the  old  city  grew  in  population 
beyond  its  ancient  confines  many  extra-mural  parishes  were 
organized,  and  from  time  to  time  a  few  of  these  were 
annexed  to  the  original  municipality.  More  of  them,  how- 
ever, remained  autonomous ;  and  in  course  of  time  there 
were  dozens  of  such  parishes,  each  governed  by  its  own 
local  vestry,  but  with  no  central  authority  to  coordinate 
the  interests  of  the  district  as  a  whole  or  to  deal  with 
matters  that  affected  more  than  a  single  parish.  This  ad- 
ministrative decentralization  was  productive  of  so  many 
marked  evils  that,  when  Parliament  undertook  the  reform 
of  municipal  government  in  1835,  there  was  urgent  need 
for  reorganization  under  the  very  shadow  of  Westminster. 
For  the  time  being,  however,  no  steps  were  taken  in 
this  direction ;  but  twenty  years  later,  when  it  became 
clear  that  public  services  which  were  seriously  needed 
could  not  possibly  be  undertaken  except  by  some  central 
authority,  Parliament  bestirred  itself,  andin  1855  established 
the  Metropolitan  Board  of  Works.1  This  body  was  com- 
posed of  forty-six  members,  selected  not  by  the  ratepayers 
directly,  but  by  the  various  parish  vestries  and  other  local 
authorities ;  and  to  it  was  intrusted  the  task  of  providing 
a  system  of  main  drainage,  of  constructing  and  maintain- 
ing new  streets  and  bridges  across  the  Thames,  and  of  con- 


1  An  elaborate  and  accurate  study  of  this  board's  activities  is  presented  in 
Ludwig  Sinzheimer's  Der  Londoner  Grafschaftsrat  (Stuttgart,  1900),  Vol.  I. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  345 

trolling  the  fire-protection  service,  all  within  an  extensive 
area  which  may  be  said  to  have  comprised  the  whole  me- 
tropolis of  that  date. 

The  Metropolitan  Board  of  Works  performed  very  valu-  Functions  of 
able  functions  in  its  time.  At  its  hands  metropolitan  Lon-  * 
don  obtained  its  first  modern  sanitary  system,  extensive  pub- 
lic works  like  the  Thames  Embankment  were  constructed, 
many  new  streets  were  opened,  and  an  adequate  fire-pro- 
tection service  was  installed.  Still,  its  work  was  neither 
popular  nor  satisfactory  to  the  citizens,  a  circumstance 
that  may  be  laid  chiefly  to  the  manner  in  which  the  body 
was  organized;  for  not  only  was  it  too  large  to  be  effec- 
tive as  an  administrative  board,  but  the  system  of  indirect 
election  resulted  in  the  choice  of  men  whose  interests 
were  chiefly  local  in  scope.  Moreover,  some  of  its  mem- 
bers were  proved  to  have  profited  corruptly  in  certain 
undertakings  of  the  board,  and  hence  as  a  body  it  never 
managed  to  anchor  itself  in  the  public  confidence.  Some 
of  its  doings  were  ultimately  investigated  by  a  parliamen- 
tary commission,  which  reported  very  unfavorably  ;  where- 
upon it  was  legislated  out  of  existence,  and  its  place  was 
taken  by  a  new  organization. 

In  this  change,    made    in    1888,    the    area    which    had  Creation  of 
hitherto  been  comprised  within    the    jurisdiction   of    the  anVcounty 
Metropolitan  Board  of  Works  was  organized  into  an  ad-  council- 
ministrative  county  and  put    under    the    authority    of   a 
county  council.1    This  body,  known  as  the  London  County 
Council,  is  composed,  in  accordance  with  the  act  of  1888, 
of  one  hundred  and  eighteen  councillors,  elected  two  each 
from  fifty-seven  "  parliamentary  boroughs,"  or  election  dis- 

1  61-62  Victoria,  c.  41,  commonly  known  as  the  Local  Government  Act  of  1888. 
Sections  40-45,  88-90,  and  113-117  deal  particularly  with  the  new  organization. 
See  also  G.  L.  Goinme,  The  London  County  Council :  its  Duties  and  Powers, 
according  to  the  Local  Government  Act  of  1888  (London,  1888)  ;  and  McMorran 
and  Dill,  The  Local  Government  Act  of  1888  (3d  ed.,  London,  1898). 


346 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN   CITIES 


Organiza- 
tion of  the 
London 
County 
Council. 


County 
Council 
elections. 


tricts,  and  four  from  the  old  city.  These  councillors  are 
chosen  for  a  three-year  term ;  and  the  method  of  nomina- 
tion, the  procedure  in  election,  and  the  qualifications  for 
voting  are  all  much  the  same  as  in  the  ordinary  munici- 
palities. The  councillors  select  and  add  to  the  membership 
of  the  council  nineteen  aldermen,  who  serve  for  a  six-year 
term,  approximately  one-half  of  them  retiring  triennially. 
The  aldermen  may  be  elected  by  the  councillors  from 
within  their  own  ranks,  or  they  may  be  chosen  from  out- 
side, a  procedure  which  is  sometimes  followed.  The  one 
hundred  and  thirty-seven  councillors  and  aldermen  select 
each  year  a  chairman  of  the  council,  and  to  fill  this  post  the 
council  is  entirely  free  to  go  outside  of  its  own  membership. 
A  chairman  may  be  reflected,  but  of  late  the  custom  has 
been  to  choose  a  different  one  each  year.  The  council 
further  elects,  from  within  its  own  ranks,  a  vice-chairman 
and  a  deputy-chairman,  who  each  serve  for  an  annual  term ; 
it  also  appoints  a  clerk  and  various  minor  officials,  who 
are  chosen  during  the  pleasure  of  the  council,  but  whose 
tenure  is  really  permanent. 

In  the  council  elections  party  considerations  have  from 
the  outset  played  a  dominating  role.  In  the  initial  contest 
for  membership  the  ratepayers  ranged  themselves  into  two 
leading  political  divisions  under  the  names  of  Moder- 
ates and  Progressives ;  and  this  cleavage  has  remained 
down  to  the  present  time,  although  at  the  last  elections  the 
Moderates  forsook  their  older  appellation  for  that  of  Re- 
formers. In  a  general  way  the  two  groups  coincide  with 
the  two  leading  national  parties,  the  Moderates  (Reformers) 
drawing  their  main  strength  from  among  those  who  in 
national  politics  owe  allegiance  to  the  Conservatives,  while 
the  Progressives  derive  their  support  chiefly  from  the  Lib- 
erals. Not  that  the  lines  of  cleavage  in  local  and  national 
politics  run  precisely  parallel,  by  any  means.  On  the  con- 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  347 

trary,  there  are  thousands  of  Conservatives  who  rank  as  London 
Progressives  in  local  politics,  and  thousands  of  Liberals  parties" 
who  seem  to  have  no  compunction  in  supporting  the  London 
Moderates  or  Reformers.  It  is  to  be  remembered,  more- 
over, that  the  suffrage  requirements  are  not  at  all  the  same 
in  council  as  in  parliamentary  elections,  and  hence  that  the 
body  of  voters,  though  in  the  main  identical,  must  neces- 
sarily differ  somewhat  in  the  two  branches.  Different 
voters'  lists  are  used  at  the  two  elections,  and  the 
polling  of  course  takes  place  at  different  times.1  Strictly 
speaking,  therefore,  the  London  parties  are  local  parties, 
each  of  them  declaring  allegiance  to  a  party  platform 
which  professes  to  deal  solely  with  municipal  issues.  The 
Progressives,  for  instance,  have  stood  consistently  for 
the  policy  of  direct  ownership  and  operation  of  all  the  im- 
portant public  services  by  the  County  Council ;  and,  as  they 
controlled  the  council  for  almost  twenty  years,  they  were 
able  to  put  many  of  their  principles  into  practice.  The 
Moderates  or  Reformers,  on  the  other  hand,  have  about  as 
steadily  opposed  the  lavish  expenditures  and  the  heavy 
borrowing  which  the  pursuance  of  the  Progressives'  policy 
necessarily  involves,  and  have  in  many  other  lines  striven 
to  put  obstacles  in  the  way  of  radical  changes.  At  the  The  issue  at 
last  elections  this  question  of  municipal  ownership  and  i^^ 
operation,  with  its  merits  and  its  limitations,  was  the  chief  electlons- 
issue  upon  which  the  contests  were  conducted.  It  may 
fairly  be  said,  therefore,  that,  although  there  is  a  general 
tendency  on  the  part  of  the  voters  to  follow  the  lines  on 
which  they  divide  in  matters  of  national  politics,  yet  the 
issues  at  the  council  elections  are  chiefly,  if  not  exclu- 
sively, local  ones,  and  in  meeting  them  the  local  parties 
are  almost  entirely  free  from  any  control  or  interference 
on  the  part  of  the  national  organizations.  It  is  an  inter- 
1  See  also  above,  p.  229. 


348 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


The  Fabian 
Society. 


Its  pro- 
gramme. 


esting  fact  that,  in  the  period  of  nearly  twenty  years  dur- 
ing which  the  Progressives  held  control  of  the  County 
Council,  a  majority  of  the  members  sent  to  the  House 
of  Commons  from  the  same  election  districts  were 
Conservatives. 

In  speaking  of  partisan  activities  in  the  County  of 
London,  one  should  not  fail  to  mention  two  local  factors 
that  have  had  considerable  to  do  with  the  course  of  recent 
London  government.  One  of  these  is  the  Fabian  Society, 
an  organization  which,  though  not  relatively  powerful  in 
point  of  numbers,1  has  exerted  a  striking  influence  upon 
London  politics  during  the  past  two  decades.  Founded  in 
1885,  the  society  at  once  set  itself  to  champion  the  cause 
of  municipal  socialism  ;  and  it  soon  secured  the  assistance 
of  several  influential  writers  who  gave  vigor  and  quality  to 
its  work  of  educational  propaganda.2  It  adopted  a  pro- 
gramme which  embodied  many  radical  reforms  in  the 
administration  of  metropolitan  affairs,  and  at  the  various 
County  Council  elections  has  used  its  whole  influence  in 
behalf  of  those  candidates  who  promised  their  support  to 
this  programme.3  Its  numerous  publications,  issued  in  the 
form  of  tracts  or  short  discussions  on  specific  reforms,  have 
had  unquestionable  weight  in  moulding  London  political 
opinion  in  general  and  the  political  attitude  of  the  em- 
ployed classes  in  particular  ;  for  these  tracts,  besides  being 
subtle  in  the  arguments  which  they  put  forth,  usually  pre- 
sent a  convincing  array  of  pertinent  facts,  and  they  are 
written  by  men  who  appear  to  have  mastered  the  art  of 

1  Its  present  membership  numbers  less  than  1000  in  a  municipality  of  nearly 
6,000,000. 

2  Perhaps  the  most  prominent  of  these  are  Messrs.  Sidney  Webb,  Graham 
Wallas,  and  George  Bernard  Shaw. 

8  Fabian  Society  Tracts,  Nos.  30-37,  90-97.  See  also  Sidney  Webb's 
London  Program  (London,  1891)  ;  and  George  Bernard  Shaw's  Fabian  Essays 
in  Socialism  (London,  1889). 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  349 

catching  the  popular  ear.  In  many  other  ways  the  work 
of  the  society  has  proved  of  high  service,  particularly  in 
ameliorating  class  prejudices ;  but  there  appears  to  be 
reason  for  believing  that  during  the  last  few  years  its 
influence  has  been  on  the  decline. 

The  other  factor  that  is  potent  in  London  local  politics  The  Labor 
has  been  interjected  into  them  by  the  recent  rise  to  promi- 
nence  of  a  party  organized  to  represent  the  interests  of  tics- 
labor.  During  almost  the  whole  of  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury neither  the  national  nor  the  local  political  situation 
was  complicated  by  the  activities  of  any  influential  party 
specifically  committed  to  the  labor  interests ;  hence  it 
came  about  that  both  the  regular  political  parties  sought 
and  obtained  a  share  of  the  workingmen's  suffrages  by 
warping  their  party  programmes  into  such  grooves  as 
policy  seemed  for  the  time  being  to  dictate.  In  London 
the  Progressives  were,  until  a  few  years  ago,  somewhat 
the  more  successful  in  the  exploitation  of  this  element ; 
but  in  the  local  election  campaign  of  1907  the  labor 
organizations,  encouraged  no  doubt  by  the  showing  which 
the  Independent  Labor  party  had  been  able  to  make  in 
the  parliamentary  elections  of  the  preceding  year,  mani- 
fested some  disposition  to  shake  themselves  free  from  the 
regular  party  trammels.  The  present  London  County 
Council  contains  eleven  Labor  representatives,  and  there 
seems  to  be  considerable  likelihood  that  at  subsequent 
elections  this  delegation  will  be  increased.  It  is  doubt- 
ful, however,  whether  such  an  outcome  would  very  materi- 
ally alter  the  general  course  of  municipal  policy;  for  two 
decades  of  Progressive  domination  in  London  government 
have  served  to  send  the  municipality  an  alarming  distance 
along  the  lines  of  concession  to  labor  demands.  As  a 
result  of  this  cumulative  liberality  to  the  interests  of  labor, 
the  County  Council  was  some  years  ago  compelled  to 


350  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

admit,  through  a  committee  of  inquiry,  that  work  under- 
taken by  it  directly  cost  much  more  than  work  of  a  similar 
nature  performed  for  private  concerns.1 
The  per-  County  Council  elections  are    fought   out   on   partisan 

sonnel  of  the    , .  ,        .,  ,        ,         , 

County  lines,  and  often,  as  was  clearly  shown  in  the  last  cam- 
paign, with  considerable  bitterness.  This  fact  does  not, 
however,  involve  as  a  corollary  any  abstention  from 
candidacy  on  the  part  of  the  best  element  among  the 
citizens  of  the  metropolis.  On  the  contrary,  the  personnel 
of  the  council  set  a  high  standard  at  the  outset ;  and,  al- 
though it  may  have  lapsed  somewhat  from  its  initial 
plane,  the  general  caliber  of  its  membership  still  continues 
high  enough  to  compare  very  favorably  with  that  of  any 
municipal  council  in  any  other  country.  The  laws  permit 
a  citizen  to  be  at  one  and  the  same  time  a  member  of  the 
London  County  Council  and  of  the  House  of  Commons  ; 
and  of  this  dual  membership  there  are  numerous  ex- 
its chair-  amples.  The  first  chairman  of  the  council  was  Lord  Rose- 
bery,  afterwards  prime  minister  of  England ;  the  second 
was  Sir  John  Lubbock  (now  Lord  Avebury) ;  and  upon 
the  roll  of  past  and  present  members  are  many  names  of 
almost  equal  prominence.2  At  the  time  of  its  establish- 
ment the  council  attracted  a  great  deal  of  attention  not 
only  in  England  but  in  other  countries ;  and  the 'privilege 
of  membership  was  from  the  outset  counted  a  distinct 
honor,  for  it  was  evident  that  the  new  body  possessed 
great  possibilities  in  the  way  of  effective  action.  It  is, 
indeed,  without  doubt  this  promised  opportunity  for  ser- 

1  See  the  Report  of  the   Council's   Committee  on  the  Works  Department 
(1896-1897),  a  quotation  from  which  is  given  in  Lowell's  Government  of  Eng- 
land, II.  219-220. 

2  Among  subsequent  chairmen  of  the  London  County  Council  may  be  men- 
tioned the  names  of  Sir  John  Button,  Sir  Arthur  Arnold,  Sir  W.  J.  Collins, 
Lord  Welby,  Sir  John  McDougall,  Lord  Monkswell,  Sir  E.  A.  Cornwall,  Mr.  J. 
W.  Benn,  M.P.,  Mr.  T.  Mackinnon  Wood,  M.P.,  and  Mr.  Evan  Spicer. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  351 

vice  that  has  since  drawn  to  its  membership  so  many  men 
of  progressive  administrative  ideas.  When  one  bears  in 
mind  the  fact  that  the  councillors,  despite  the  large  de- 
mands made  upon  them  by  committee  work,  receive  no 
salaries  or  allowances,  one  feels  that  the  success  with 
which  Londoners  have  been  able  to  maintain  the  quality 
of  the  council  is  worth  more  than  a  passing  word  of 
admiration.1 

The  powers  given  to  the  London  County  Council  are  Powers  of 
comprehensive,  and  in  their  exercise  are  of  the  most  county 
direct  interest  to  the  citizen.  In  the  first  place,  the  body  CounciL 
inherited  the  jurisdiction  of  the  former  Metropolitan 
Board  of  Works,  which,  as  has  been  noticed,  had  extensive 
authority  in  sanitary  matters.2  Through  this  administra- 
tive legacy  the  council  became  the  sole  controlling  author- 
ity with  respect  to  main  drainage  and  general  sewage 
disposal,  all  the  trunk  sewers  of  the  county  being  con- 
structed and  kept  in  repair  by  those  who  work  under 
its  direct  supervision.  Subsidiary  drains,  however,  and 
everything  affecting  them  are  left  to  the  control  of  the 
authorities  in  the  different  boroughs  into  which  the 
county  is  divided.  In  all  matters  pertaining  to  the  pro- 
tection of  property  against  fire  the  council  is  the  sole 
authority ;  its  powers  in  all  that  relates  to  the  organiza- 
tion and  discipline  of  the  London  fire  brigade  are  with- 
out any  limitation  whatever.  In  this  respect  the  London 
system  distinguishes  itself  somewhat  sharply  from  that 
of  either  Paris  or  Berlin  ;  for  in  each  of  these  cities  the 
fire-protection  service  is,  like  the  police  administration, 
directly  under  the  control  of  the  state  authorities.  As 

1  The  present  council  contains  21  merchants,  15  manufacturers,  18  lawyers, 
11  workmen  (of  whom  7  are  trades-union  officials),  10  retired  civil  servants,  and 
26  "gentlemen,"  or  persons  whose  independent  means  exempt  them  from  the 
necessity  of  pursuing  any  regular  occupations. 

2  Above,  p.  345. 


352  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

for  streets,  all  new  projects  and  improvements  that  may 
properly  be  termed  metropolitan  in  character  are  carried 
out  by  the  County  Council ;  those  that  are  not  distinctly 
of  this  nature  are  conducted  sometimes  by  the  joint 

Public  action  of  the  council  and  the  authorities  of  the  local 
boroughs  affected,  and  sometimes,  if  the  project  be  purely 
local  in  character,  by  the  borough  authorities  alone.  The 
cleansing,  scavenging,  and  watering  of  all  streets,  however 
constructed,  are  matters  within  the  purview  of  the 
boroughs ;  but  jurisdiction  with  reference  to  the  naming 
or  the  renaming  of  streets  is  reserved  by  the  County 
Council.  Traffic  regulations  for  all  streets  within  the 
Metropolitan  Police  District  (and  this  includes  the  County 
of  London)  are  made  by  the  metropolitan  police  authori- 
ties. The  bridges  that  cross  the  Thames  ("except  those 
within  the  limits  of  the  old  city)  are  constructed  and 
maintained  by  the  County  Council,  which  also  has  charge 
of  the  Thames  Embankment.1 

Housing  and  To  the  care  of  the  council  is  further  committed  the 
on'  administration  of  the  building  laws,  a  jurisdiction  that 
includes  the  enforcement  of  the  rules  relating  to  the  con- 
struction and  maintenance  of  tenement-houses.  By  the 
act  of  1890,  commonly  known  as  the  Housing  of  the 
Working  Classes  Act,2  the  council  is  empowered  to  order 
the  clearance  of  unsanitary  and  congested  areas  whenever 
these  are  large  enough  to  be  considered  more  than  local 
nuisances,  and  the  boroughs  are  authorized  to  deal  with 
areas  of  minor  extent.  When  there  is  any  dispute  be- 
tween the  two  authorities  as  to  whether  an  undertaking 
is  metropolitan  or  local  in  character,  the  Home  Office  is 

1  This  brief  outline  of  the  council's  powers  has  been  condensed  from  the 
"  Statement  of  the  Powers  and  Duties  of  the  London  County  Council,"  which 
is  printed  in  the  Report  of  the  Eoyal  Commission  on  the  Amalgamation  of 
London,  Appendix  vii.  Such  changes  as  have  been  made  since  1894  have  been 
duly  noted.  2  53-54  Victoria,  c.  70. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  353 

empowered  to  act  as  final  arbiter.  After  a  congested 
area  has  been  razed,  the  council  may  erect  and  maintain 
improved  dwellings  or  lodging-houses,  which  it  may  rent 
to  private  occupants ;  or  the  County  Council  and  the 
councils  of  individual  boroughs  may  jointly  undertake 
projects  of  this  sort,  contributing  to  the  cost  in  such 
proportions  as  may  be  agreed  upon. 

With   respect    to    the    provision    of    the    major    public  Major 
utilities,  such  as  water,  lighting,  and  transportation,  the  ^es/0 
powers    of    the    County  Council  are  not  so  broad.     The 
whole    question  of  London's  water    supply,  for  instance, 
was  settled  by  Parliament  in  the  Metropolitan  Water  Act 
of  1902,  which  mapped  out  a  metropolitan  water  district 
including  the  whole  of  the  County  of  London  and  a  large 
circle    of   territory  outside,   comprising    in    all    about  six 
hundred  and  twenty  square  miles.1     For  the    control  of  London's 
the    water   supply   within   this  new  district  the  act  pro-  ™ppiy. 
vided  a  Metropolitan  Water  Board  of  sixty-six  members, 
selected  by  various  authorities  within  the  district,  county, 
borough,  and  parishes,  and  including  fourteen  members  of 
the  County  Council.     This  board  forthwith  took  over,  by 
purchase,  the  plants  of  all  the  private  water  companies 
operating  within  the  district,  and  now  has  direct  super- 
vision 2  over  all  matters  pertaining  to  this  particular  form 
of  public  service. 

With  respect  to  lighting  by  electricity  the  County  Coun-  Electric 
cil  likewise    has  almost  no    powers.     All  the  streets  are    Ig 
lighted,  either  with    electricity  or  with  gas,   by  the  bor- 
oughs ;    and  electricity  for  private  use  is  supplied  either 
by  the  boroughs  directly  through  plants  which  they  own 

1  On  the  conditions  prior  to  this  time,  see  Arthur  ShadwelPs  London  Water 
Supply  (London,  1899),  and  the  Eeport  of  the  Eoyal  Commission  on  the  London 
Water  Supply  (1900). 

2  Fifth  Annual  Report  of  the  Metropolitan  Water  Board,  for  the  Tear  end- 
ing March  31,  1908  (London,  1908). 

2A 


354 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


London's 
gas. 


London's 
tramways. 


and  operate,  or  by  private  companies  that  provide  the 
service  for  them  under  borough  franchises.  The  County 
Council  has  eagerly  sought  powers  to  deal  with  the  prob- 
lem of  electric  lighting,  but  Parliament  has  steadfastly 
refused  to  confer  this  authority.  At  the  present  time, 
therefore,  the  county  authorities  may  neither  own  nor 
operate  this  service  directly,  nor  may  they  grant  any 
franchises  for  the  provision  of  electricity.  They  have, 
however,  some  powers  with  regard  to  determining  the 
location  of  cables  and  wires  in  the  streets,  and  they  may 
provide  testing-stations. 

The  gas-lighting  service  of  London  is  wholly  in  the 
hands  of  private  companies,  which  carry  on  their  opera- 
tions under  parliamentary  franchises,  and  subject  to  such 
regulations  as  have  been  provided  by  statute,  notably  the 
various  "  sliding-scale  "  laws.1  The  County  Council  may 
neither  own  nor  operate  gas  plants,  nor  may  it  exercise 
any  effectual  supervision  over  private  gas  companies  oper- 
ating within  its  territory.  It  has,  however,  secured  the 
right  to  make  regulations  for  the  testing  of  gas,  and  in 
the  exercise  of  this  power  has  frequently  come  into  con- 
flict with  the  companies.  The  municipalization  of  this 
service  has  long  been  an  important  plank  in  the  Fabian 
platform,  and  there  is  little  doubt  that  the  County  Council 
would  have  assumed  direct  charge  of  the  utility  many 
years  ago  if  the  laws  of  the  land  had  permitted  it  to 
do  so. 

In  the  matter  of  transportation  services  the  powers  of 
the  County  Council  are  much  more  liberal  than  they  are 
with  respect  to  the  provision  of  water  and  light.  It  has 
now  acquired  practically  all  the  tramway  lines  within  the 

1  A  great  deal  of  material  relating  to  the  working  of  these  laws  is  embodied 
in  the  National  Civic  Federation :  Report  on  Public  Ownership  and  Operation, 
Pt.  II.  Vol.  IL  113-247. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  355 

county  ;  and  in  addition  it  has  authority  to  construct  and 
operate  new  lines,  provided  always  that  it  obtains  from 
the  borough  councils,  who  are  in  all  cases  the  local  road 
authorities,  permission  to  use  streets  in  which  the  lines 
are  to  run,  —  an  exceedingly  important  restriction,  as  will 
appear  later  on.  The  jurisdiction  of  the  County  Council 
is  confined  to  surface  transportation  ;  underground  transit 
is  in  the  hands  of  private  companies  operating  under  par- 
liamentary  franchises.  Supervision  of  transportation  by 
water  is  intrusted  to  a  special  authority,  the  Thames  Con- 
servancy ;  but  the  County  Council  has  been  empowered 
to  engage  directly  in  this  service,  and  has  for  some  years 
operated  a  fleet  of  river  steamboats  for  the  transportation 
of  passengers  from  one  part  of  the  county  to  another. 

Various  other  powers  have  at  different  times  been  given  Minor  pub- 
to  the  London  County  Council.  It  has  charge  of  parks  and 
places  of  recreation,  except  the  royal  parks  and  certain 
local  spaces  that  are  left  to  the  borough  authorities  ;  and 
in  these  parks  it  provides  band  concerts  and  other  en- 
tertainments for  the  public.  It  licenses  music  halls  and 
theatres,  except  certain  theatres  that  are  under  a  royal  offi- 
cer, the  lord  chamberlain.  It  has  power  to  establish  tech- 
nical schools ;  and  through  its  Education  Committee, 
which  was  invested  by  the  London  Education  Act  (1903) 
with  practically  the  same  powers  that  appertain  to 
similar  committees  in  the  provincial  cities,  it  exercises 
supervision  over  other  schools.  Many  functions  of  a  minor 
nature  also  come  within  its  jurisdiction,  —  as,  for  example, 
the  appointment  of  coroners,  the  inspection  of  weights  and 
measures,  the  licensing  of  abattoirs,  the  enforcement  of 
regulations  relating  to  hours  of  labor  in  shops,  and  so 
on. 

For    carrying    on    its    work    the    County    Council    has  The  County 

J  Council's 

authority  to   levy  annual   rates,  which  are   assessed   and  revenues. 


356 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


Borrowing 
power. 


Attitude  of 
Parliament 
toward  the 
council's 
powers. 


collected  substantially  as  in  the  other  municipalities.  It 
levies  two  rates  each  year,  one  for  general  and  one  for 
special  county  purposes,  —  the  former  for  the  maintenance 
of  those  services  that  extend  throughout  the  county,  the 
latter  for  the  support  of  those  that  do  not  include  the  old 
city.  These  rates  amount  to  so  many  shillings  in  the 
pound  on  the  rental  value  of  real  property.  With  the  per- 
mission of  the  Local  Government  Board,  or,  alternatively, 
through  authority  obtained  by  private  act  of  Parliament, 
the  council  is  further  empowered  to  borrow  money,  a 
privilege  of  which  it  has  availed  itself  very  extensively 
during  the  past  decade  or  more.  Some  sweeping  reform 
in  the  methods  of  assessment  has  long  been  sought  by  the 
Progressive  majority  in  the  council,  on  the  ground  that  the 
means  by  which  the  annual  revenues  are  now  raised  are 
not  sufficiently  broad  and  inclusive ;  for  under  the  present 
system  unimproved  land,  no  matter  how  valuable  on  ac- 
count of  its  location,  pays  no  rates.  The  "dead  hand  of 
the  land,"  it  is  claimed,  has  been  one  of  the  most  formi- 
dable obstacles  encountered  by  the  council  in  the  practical 
exercise  of  its  powers.1  The  council  has  also  sought  ear- 
nestly the  privilege  of  assessing  upon  the  owners  of  abut- 
ting property  a  part  at  least  of  the  cost  of  public  improve- 
ments,2 a  system  that  prevails  very  widely  in  American 
cities.3  This  concession  Parliament  has  occasionally 
granted,  but  always  somewhat  grudgingly  and  under 
strict  limitation. 

Taken  as  a  whole,  the  powers  of  the  London  County 
Council,  despite  the  important  restrictions  set  upon  them, 

1  The  chief  arguments  against  the  present  system  are  given  in  Frederick 
Howe's  British  City,  ch.  xvi. 

2  In  support  of  its  claims  the  council  issued  in  1893  a  publication  entitled 
Precedents  of  Assessment  according  to  Benefits. 

3  Victor  Kosewater,  Special  Assessments  :    a  Study  in  Municipal  Finance 
(New  York,  1893). 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  357 

are  extensive  in  scope  and  portentous  in  character.  At 
the  outset  the  new  organization  was  endowed  with  preroga- 
tives that  made  it  the  most  powerful  municipal  council  in 
the  world  ;  but  the  vigorous  and  somewhat  radical  use 
which  it  at  once  began  to  make  of  its  powers  seems  to 
have  shocked  parliamentary  conservatism,  till  the  feeling 
that  no  further  functions  should  be  intrusted  to  it  soon 
came  to  be  dominant,  especially  in  the  House  of  Lords. 
Thenceforth,  when  the  council  asked  for  new  powers  or 
for  an  extension  of  its  old  ones,  it  usually  encountered 
refusal,  even  when  its  requests  were  to  all  appearances 
entirely  logical.  Thus,  Parliament  effectually  sidetracked 
its  aspirations  to  control  London's  water  supply  by  creat- 
ing the  Metropolitan  Board,  and  frustrated  its  plans  to 
secure  charge  of  electric  lighting  by  committing  this 
function  to  the  borough  councils.  It  has  come  to  pass, 
therefore,  that  the  powers  possessed  by  the  County 
Council  are  very  far  from  displaying  any  logic  or  sym- 
metry. On  the  one  hand,  some  functions  that  appear 
to  be  of  little  more  than  local  interest  or  importance  have 
been  given  to  it ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  some  powers  of 
a  distinctly  metropolitan  character  have  been  withheld 
from  it  and  apportioned  among  the  local  authorities.  In- 
deed, the  apportionment  of  administrative  powers  among 
the  various  London  authorities,  metropolitan,  county, 
borough,  and  parish,  not  to  speak  of  the  special  boards 
and  commissions,  is  likely  to  appall  by  its  very  complexity 
and  lack  of  reasonableness  any  one  who  seeks  an  element- 
ary grasp  of  the  situation.  It  is  only  fair  to  add,  how- 
ever, that,  needlessly  complicated  as  this  contemporary 
division  of  powers  may  appear,  it  is  a  vast  improvement 
over  the  condition  that  existed  prior  to  1888,  when  the 
chaos  of  overlapping  and  conflicting  jurisdictions  served 
to  render  the  government  of  London  an  excellent  model 


358  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

of    what   an    effective    municipal    system    ought   not    to 
be.1 

Thecoun-  It  is,  of  course,  obvious  that  a  council  of  nearly   one 

of  work.  '  hundred  and  forty  members  cannot  efficiently  perform 
work  of  detailed  administration.  The  London  County 
Council  has  not  attempted  to  do  so  directly,  but  has 
accomplished  most  of  its  labors  through  its  standing  and 
special  committees.2  It  meets,  however,  very  frequently, 
—  once  a  week  except  during  the  summer  months,  —  and 
on  these  occasions  determines  the  general  course  of  mu- 
nicipal policy.8  The  chairman,  who  presides  at  the  meet- 
ings, has  nothing  more  than  the  usual  powers  of  a 
presiding  officer ;  he  is  in  no  sense  the  executive  head  of 
the  county.  The  real  work  of  administration  is  per- 
formed by  the  council  committees,  and  the  chairmen  of 
the  more  important  of  these  committees  are  the  dominat- 
itscom-  ing  personalities.  Of  the  standing  committees  there  are 
about  a  score,  among  the  more  important  being  the 
General  Purposes  Committee  (which  is  made  up  of  the 
chairmen  of  all  other  standing  committees),  the  Fi- 
nance Committee,  the  Highways  Committee,  the  Education 
Committee,  the  Works  Committee,  and  the  Fire  Brigade 
Committee.4  These  committees  are  appointed,  not  by 
the  chairmen,  but  by  the  council  itself ;  and,  though  some 
rearrangement  is  made  necessary  after  each  election,  it  is 

1  See,   for  example,   the  description  of  London   government  given  in  J. 
Toulmin  Smith's  The  Metropolis  and  its  Municipal  Administration  (London, 
1852). 

2  The  "Standing  Orders"  of  the  council,  last  revised  in  March,  1907,  and 
published  the  year  following,  regulate  all  important  matters  relating  to  pro- 
cedure. 

8  The  Minutes  of  the  Proceedings  of  the  London  County  Council  are  printed 
weekly  after  each  meeting. 

4  One  of  the  clearest  discussions  of  the  London  County  Council's  procedure, 
and  particularly  of  its  committee  system,  is  that  presented  in  F.  W.  Hirst's 
"London,"  in  the  Schriften  des  Vereins  fur  Sozialpolitik,  Vol.  123,  pt.  vii, 
especially  pp.  109-123. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  359 

regarded  as  desirable  that  the  personnel  of  important 
committees  be  varied  as  little  as  is  practicable.  In  the 
selection  of  its  committees  the  London  County  Council 
shows  to  a  somewhat  greater  extent  than  do  the  ordinary 
city  councils  the  influence  of  partisan  considerations. 
This  is  particularly  true  in  the  choice  of  committees  that 
have  to  do  immediately  with  the  operation  of  the  public 
utilities  ;  for,  if  a  majority  of  the  members  of  any  such 
committee  were  not  ,in  full  sympathy  with  the  majority 
of  the  council,  there  would  in  all  probability  be  no  end  of 
difficulties  in  putting  the  council's  policy  into  satisfactory 
operation.  When  the  Progressives  were  in  control  of  the  party  influ- 
council,  they  saw  to  it  that  a  majority  of  the  men  on  all  JJSJI^JJ 
the  more  important  committees  came  from  their  own  committees, 
ranks  ;  and  when  the  Reformers  got  the  upper  hand  a 
year  or  two  ago  they  took  the  same  precaution  in  their 
own  behalf.  The  minority  party  is,  however,  invariably 
treated  with  consideration  both  in  the  selection  of  the 
nineteen  aldermen  whom  the  councillors  add  to  their 
number,  and  in  the  organization  of  all  the  committees. 
In  all  cases,  furthermore,  individual  capacity  plays  an 
important  part  in  the  work  of  selection. 

Each  standing  committee  has  its  chairman,  its  vice- 
chairman,  and  from  seven  to  thirty-five  members.  The 
chairmen  are  selected  by  the  council,  and  in  all  the  work  committees, 
of  the  committees  exercise  an  important  if  not  a  dominat- 
ing influence.  They  are  the  connecting  links  between 
the  committees  and  the  whole  council,  preparing  for 
committee  consideration  such  matters  as  the  council  may 
refer  to  it,  and  presenting  to  the  council  the  committees'  re- 
ports and  recommendations.  The  committees  meet  either 
fortnightly  or  weekly  as  the  pressure  of  business  seems 
to  require,  and  often  for  several  hours  at  a  time.  In 
general  operation  and  influence  the  council  committees  in 


360  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN   CITIES 

London  do  not  differ  greatly  from  those  in  the  other 
cities  of  the  kingdom  :  their  sessions  are  attended,  when 
necessary,  by  the  paid  officials  of  the  municipality ;  they 
have  no  final  powers,  but  may  simply  report  to  the  council 
with  advice  as  to  action ;  and  their  influence  rests 
wholly  upon  the  fact  that  the  council  usually  accepts 
Sources  of  their  recommendations.  No  committee  has  authority,  for 
ence!"  example,  to  make  an  appointment  to  any  office  in  the 
service  of  the  county  ;  but  as  a  matter  of  practice  the 
council  is  accustomed,  whenever  an  appointment  is  to  be 
made,  to  seek  and  to  accept  the  advice  of  the  particular 
committee  within  whose  special  sphere  the  appointee's 
work  is  to  be  performed.  In  all  matters  relating  to 
public  construction  also,  to  the  maintenance  of  public 
services,  the  awarding  of  contracts,  and  the  purchase  of 
supplies,  the  deciding  power,  though  technically  vested 
in  the  hands  of  the  whole  council,  is  in  the  vast  majority 
of  instances  really  exercised  by  the  appropriate  committee. 
It  is,  of  course,  entirely  true  that  the  council  may  upon 
occasion  set  aside  a  committee's  recommendation,  or 
accept  its  minority  report,  and  this  without  creating  any 
impression  that  it  lacks  confidence  in  the  committee's 
general  judgment  or  efficiency ;  but  instances  of  this  sort 
are  not  sufficiently  frequent  to  disprove  the  rule  concern- 
ing the  practical  finality  of  committee  action.  They 
come  just  often  enough  to  impress  upon  the  committees 
the  necessity  that  their  recommendations  be  prudent 
and  carefully  considered.  From  this  point  of  view,  in- 
deed, the  council's  occasional  recalcitrancy  is  a  very  salu- 
tary feature  of  its  procedure.1 

It  has  been  pointed  out  that,  in  most  of  the  English 

1  For  an  outsider's  opinions  regarding  the  efficient  manner  in  which  the 
council  performs  its  work,  see  G.  L.  Fox's  article  on  "  The  London  County 
Council,"  in  the  Tale  Review,  May,  1895. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  361 

cities,  the  council  committees  are  disposed  to  lean  more  Relation  of 
or  less  heavily  upon  the  permanent  officials  whenever  they  to^Sd** 
have  difficult  administrative  problems  to  solve,  and  espe-  officials. 
cially  when  they  have  technical  questions  to  deal  with. 
The  same  is  broadly  true  of  everyday  administration  in 
London,  particularly  in  recent  years.  In  the  first  decade 
of  the  County  Council's  existence  not  so  much  dependence 
was  put  upon  these  officials,  a  circumstance  probably  due 
to  the  fact  that,  prior  to  1888,  the  permanent  officers  of 
the  Metropolitan  Board  of  Works  (to  whose  jurisdiction 
the  County  Council  succeeded)  were  generally  regarded  as 
having  been  too  influential  and  as  having  used  their  influ- 
ence in  pernicious  ways.  The  practice  of  depending  more 
and  more  upon  the  counsel  of  the  paid  officials  has,  how- 
ever, been  steadily  increasing,  a  growth  that  has  unques- 
tionably been  promoted  by  the  fact  that  the  chairmen  of 
committees  of  the  London  County  Council  are  not 
usually  left  in  their  posts  for  long  terms  of  years,  and 
hence  do  not  have  much  opportunity  to  become  skilled 
in  the  work  of  their  respective  departments.  It  seems  to 
be  fortunate  that  this  line  of  development  is  being 
followed  ;  for  the  English  system  of  departmental  admin- 
istration by  council  committees  appears  to  owe  much  of 
its  general  excellence  to  the  substantial  influence  which  it 
actually  vests  in  the  hands  of  municipal  experts.1 

The   permanent  officials  of    the  administrative  County  The  paid 

»     T         i  f  f  •>  j    officials  of 

of  London  form,  of  course,  a  very  large  company  and 
embody  almost  every  imaginable  form  of  skill,  —  legal, 
medical,  educational,  technical,  and  so  on.  From  highest 
to  lowest,  all  are  appointed  on  the  authority  of  the  County 
Council  to  serve  during  its  pleasure  ;  and  any  one  of  them 
may  at  any  time  be  removed  by  a  majority  vote  of  its 

1  On  this  point,  see  Professor  Lowell's  paper  on  "  The  Need  for  Municipal 
Experts,"  in  Proceedings  of  the  National  Municipal  League,  1908. 


362  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

Thecoun-  members.  In  making  its  selections  the  council  is  subject 
domiiTmak-  to  no  civil  service  regulations  imposed  upon  it  by  any 
mentsP°int"  n^Sner  authority,  and  in  the  exercise  of  its  power  of  re- 
moval it  is  hampered  by  no  external  jurisdiction  whatso- 
ever. As  in  the  other  cities  of  the  land,  all  appointments 
of  any  importance,  though  technically  during  the  pleasure 
of  the  appointing  authority,  are  virtually  for  life,  or  for  so 
long  as  anything  approaching  satisfactory  service  is  ren- 
dered. In  the  period  of  nearly  twenty  years  during  which 
the  Progressives  controlled  the  making  of  London  appoint- 
ments, they  must  in  many  cases  have  been  more  or  less 
influenced  by  party  considerations  in  determining  their 
choices ;  yet  the  advent  of  the  Reformers  to  power  a 
year  or  two  ago  was  not  followed  by  a  single  removal  of 
any  consequence.  As  posts  become  vacant  in  the  natural 
course  of  events,  the  Reformers  will  doubtless  fill  them 
with  men  of  their  own  political  creed ;  but  that  they  will 
force  vacancies  in  order  to  provide  avaricious  followers 
with  due  rewards  for  party  services  there  is  apparently  no 
danger  whatever.  In  London,  as  in  the  provincial  cities, 
the  only  real  barrier  to  the  adoption  of  the  spoils  system 
with  all  its  demoralizing  concomitants  is  the  existence  of  a 
public  opinion  which  clings  with  steadfastness  and  loyalty 
to  the  idea  that  public  office  is  a  public  trust.  As  a  safe- 
guard this  has,  however,  proved  entirely  adequate. 
Methods  of  In  the  exercise  of  its  appointing  power  the  London 
County  Council  proceeds  along  lines  similar  to  those  fol- 
lowed by  the  councils  of  the  ordinary  English  boroughs. 
The  higher  posts  it  fills  directly  by  calling  for  applications, 
referring  these  to  the  appropriate  committee,  and,  as  a 
rule,  accepting  the  committee's  recommendation.  As  party 
lines  are  perhaps  more  closely  drawn  in  the  metropolis 
than  in  most  of  the  boroughs,  the  recommendations  which 
these  committees  make  are  apt  to  have  a  distinctly  parti- 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  363 

san  flavor ;  but  this  does  not  mean  that  the  gloss  of  party 
prominence  is  made  to  cloak  obvious  lack  of  qualification. 
Although  a  majority  of  the  committeemen  will  almost 
invariably  prefer  a  candidate  of  their  own  political  faith, 
they  must  have  entirely  other  grounds  upon  which  to 
justify  their  recommendation ;  and  these  grounds  are 
usually  to  be  found  only  in  the  personal  fitness  of  the 
applicant. 

The  minor  posts  in  the  County  of  London  are  ordi- 
narily filled,  not  by  the  council,  but  by  the  heads  of  the 
various  departments  in  consultation  with  the  appropriate 
committees,  or  more  often  with  the  chairmen  of  such 
committees.  Sometimes,  of  course,  individual  councillors 
may,  in  order  to  secure  favors  for  their  constituents,  bring 
pressure  to  bear  upon  heads  of  department  or  upon  chair- 
men ;  but  most  councillors  refuse  to  do  this.  Such  press- 
ure can,  moreover,  be  effectually  resisted.  Thus,  the  The  absence 
Tramways  Department,  which  employs  thousands  of  car-  ^g^ 
drivers  and  conductors,  is  always  glad  to  consider  the 
claims  of  applicants  who  bear  recommendations  from 
members  of  the  County  Council ;  but  it  may  be  doubted 
whether  such  testimonials  have  any  greater  weight  than 
those  presented  by  citizens  of  equal  prominence  outside 
the  ranks  of  the  council.  In  the  choice  of  his  employees 
the  general  manager  of  the  London  tramway  system  has 
about  as  much  freedom  as  that  enjoyed  by  the  corre- 
sponding executive  head  of  any  similar  private  enterprise. 
The  council  has,  it  is  true,  provided  various  general  regu- 
lations relating  to  the  minimum  wages  of  employees  in 
this  department,  the  length  of  a  day's  labor,  the  provision 
of  uniforms,  and  so  on;  but  it  has  not  attempted  to  in- 
terfere in  the  actual  routine  of  appointments  and  promo- 
tions or  in  any  other  matter  of  detailed  management. 
The  same  may  be  said  of  all  the  other  departments; 


364 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


The  clerk  of 
the  council. 


The  comp- 
troller. 


in  each  of  them  the  permanent  head  has  generous 
latitude. 

Among  the  permanent  officials  of  the  county  may  be 
mentioned,  first  of  all,  the  clerk  of  the  council.  The  act 
of  1888  made  no  provision  for  such  an  officer,  but  arranged 
instead  that  a  deputy-chairman,  selected  by  the  council 
from  its  own  ranks,  should  have  charge  of  the  clerical 
work.  It  soon  became  apparent,  however,  that  there  was 
serious  need  of  an  official  who  would  do  for  the  County 
Council  what  the  town  clerk  does  for  the  council  of  a 
borough,  —  in  other  words,  an  official  who  would  do  much 
more  than  keep  the  minute-book.  Accordingly,  in  1896 
a  change  was  made  whereby  the  council  was  provided 
with  a  permanent  clerk.  In  the  hands  of  its  present 
occupant  the  post  has  risen  to  one  of  high  service  and 
importance  in  London  government,  contributing  in  con- 
siderable degree  to  the  smoothness  with  which  the  council 
has  been  able  to  carry  on  its  work.1  The  clerk  now  has 
a  staff  of  assistants  who  attend  the  various  committee- 
meetings  and  perform  the  large  amount  of  clerical  labor 
which  the  system  of  committee  administration  involves. 

Then  there  is  the  comptroller,  an  officer  who  has  general 
supervision  of. the  county's  financial  affairs,  with  functions 
similar  in  the  main  to  those  of  the  borough  treasurers, 
but  with  much  greater  responsibilities  and  vastly  more 
work. 2  The  complicated  financial  relations  that  exist 
between  the  County  of  London  and  the  twenty-eight 
boroughs  into  which  it  is  apportioned  make  the  comp- 


1  The  present  clerk  is  G.  L.  Gomme,  Esq.,  well  known  to  American  students 
of  government  through  his  volume  on  The  Governance  of  London,  and  other 
works. 

2  These  summaries  concerning  the  duties  of  officials  are  compiled  from  the 
By-laws  and  Regulations  of  the  London  County  Council,  revised  to  March,  1906 
(London,  1906)  ;  the  Handbook  of  the  Work  of  the  London  County  Council 
(issued  annually  since  1900)  ;  and  the  London  Manual. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  365 

troller's  office  no  sinecure ;  and  the  enormous  indebtedness 
of  the  county  provides  an  unusually  large  amount  of  rou- 
tine labor.  In  addition,  there  is  the  task  of  financing  the 
huge  services  (such  as  tramways)  that  are  operated  directly 
by  the  County  Council,  a  burden  which  falls  to  some 
extent  upon  the  Finance  Committee  of  the  council,  but  is 
by  this  body  shifted  more  or  less  upon  the  comptroller's 
office.  With  all  its  other  duties  this  office  also  has  charge 
of  all  disbursements.  A  deputy-comptroller,  two  assistant 
comptrollers,  and  a  staff  of  clerks  aid  the  chief. 

A  third  permanent  official  with  large  tasks  and  respon-  The  chief 
sibilities  is  the  chief  engineer  of  the  county,  whose  super-  engmeer> 
vision  of  the  system  of  main  drainage  is  perhaps  the  most 
important  of  his  multifarious  duties,  for  in  this  particular 
branch  of  administration  his  department  employs  over  a 
thousand  persons.  The  construction  of  new  main  high- 
ways, the  maintenance  of  the  county  bridges,  and  several 
other  like  matters  of  importance  also  come  within  the 
scope  of  the  engineer's  jurisdiction.  The  post  commands 
a  high  stipend,  and  gives  the  incumbent  charge  of  a  corps 
of  high-grade  assistant  engineers.  It  is  now  filled  by  one 
of  the  best-known  construction  engineers  in  Europe.1 

Other  permanent  officials  are  the  solicitor,  the  superin-  other  heads 
tending  architect,  the  medical  officer,  the  chief  officer  of 
the  park  department,  the  manager  of  works,  and  the  chief 
officer  of  the  fire  brigade,  each  of  whom  has  charge  of  the 
department  indicated  by  his  title.2  There  is  also  the 
general  manager  of  tramways,  with  his  two  chief  assist- 
ants (the  electrical  engineer  and  the  traffic  manager) ; 
and,  finally,  the  housing  manager,  who  has  general  care  of 
the  work  which  the  council  has  undertaken  in  the  way  of 

1  Maurice  Fitzmaurice,  Esq.,  C.  M.  G.,  is  the  present  incumbent. 

2  For  details  concerning  the  duties  of  these  officials,  see  the  London  Manual 
(1907). 


366  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

providing  municipal  dwellings.  All  these  officials  receive 
annual  salaries  varying  from  six  hundred  to  two  thousand 
pounds.  The  general  staff  of  each  department  is  ranged 
into  seven  classes,  which  pay  different  rates  of  remunera- 
tion. Men  ordinarily  enter  the  service  as  fourth-class 
assistants  and  work  their  way  up  to  the  highest  order, 
where  they  are  known  as  principal  assistants.1  From 
this  class  the  heads  of  departments  are  usually  chosen,  but 
sometimes  they  come  from  outside  the  regular  service  alto- 
gether. 

Summary  of  Since  the  London  County  Council  has  just  rounded  out 
oil's  work,  two  decades  of  existence,  it  may  be  opportune  to  note  briefly 
just  what  it  has  accomplished  during  this  period.  To 
attempt  this  in  even  the  most  general  fashion  is,  however, 
to  enter  the  realm  of  controversy ;  for,  although  the  new 
organization  has  unquestionably  accomplished  much  for 
the  metropolis,  opinions  do  not  agree  as  to  just  how  far 
its  work  has  been  crowned  with  success.  There  are,  in- 
deed, very  many  who  think  that  by  profitless  ventures 
into  the  domain  of  municipal  trading  the  council  has  off- 
set many  of  the  achievements  that  stand  to  its  credit.2  It 
is  admitted  by  all,  however,  that  its  work  has  been  con- 
ducted honestly  and  with  almost  entire  freedom  from  cor- 
ruption or  scandal,  and  that  in  every  way  it  has  marked 
a  decided  improvement  over  the  achievements  of  its 
predecessors. 

1  The  organization  of  the  staff  is  as  follows:  (1)  Heads  of  Departments,  £600 
to  £2000  ;   (2)  Principal  Assistants,  £400  to  £500  ;    (3)  Senior  Assistants,  £300 
to  £400 ;    (4)  First-class  Assistants,  £200  with  increases  of  £15  per  annum  to 
£245 ;   (5)  Second-class  Assistants,  £150  with  stated  increases  to  £200  ;    (6) 
Third-class  Assistants,  £100  with  increases  of  £10  per  year  to  £160  ;  (7)  Fourth- 
class  Assistants,  £80  with  annual  increases  of  £5  to  £100. 

2  The  annual  reports  of  the  council  will  repay  study.    Each  contains  a  review 
of  the  year's  work  by  the  chairman,  and  these  reviews  are  in  many  cases  ex- 
tremely interesting.     Statistical  data  relating  to  every  branch  of  the  council's 
work  may  be  found  in  the  annual  publication  entitled  London  Statistics. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  367 

Since  the  council  took  hold  of  affairs  it  has  greatly  Marked  im- 
extended  and  improved  the  sewerage  system  of  the  me-  j 
tropolls  as  regards  both  the  collection  and  the  ultimate 
disposal  of  sewage.  It  has  now  under  its  immediate  con- 
trol more  than  three  hundred  miles  of  trunk  sewers,  which 
discharge  over  two  hundred  and  fifty  million  gallons  of 
sewage  per  day.  It  has  constructed  many  new  and  im- 
portant arteries  of  metropolitan  traffic,  notably  the  Black- 
wall  Tunnel,  the  Tower  Bridge  Approaches  and  Tunnel, 
the  new  King's  Way,  the  Thames  Embankment  Extension, 
and  the  new  Vauxhall  Bridge.1  It  has  provided  a  number 
of  new  parks  and  places  of  recreation,  besides  greatly  im- 
proving those  which  existed  before  the  date  of  its  organi- 
zation. Most  of  these  tasks  it  has  undertaken  directly 
through  its  Works  Department,  which  was  established  in 
1892  in  order  that  the  authorities  might  be  rendered  less 
dependent  upon  private  contractors.  Through  this  branch 
the  council  has  during  the  past  fifteen  years  constructed 
most  of  its  artisans'  dwellings,  fire  stations,  streets,  sewers, 
and  other  works  ;  for,  though  work  done  in  this  way  seems 
to  cost  somewhat  more  than  when  performed  by  private 
contractors,  it  appears  to  be  of  higher  quality  and  more 
satisfactory  in  ultimate  results.  Large  improvements  have 
also  been  made  in  the  fire-protection  service.  Since  1889 
the  brigade  has  been  doubled  in  numbers  and  the  general 
efficiency  of  the  system  greatly  increased.  A  small  part 
of  the  cost  of  maintaining  this  utility  is  borne  by  the  na- 
tional government,  and  the  insurance  companies  are  also 
contributors  to  some  extent ;  but  the  bulk  of  the  expense 
falls  on  the  ratepayers,  who  contribute  about  a  quarter  of 
a  million  pounds  per  annum  for  the  support  of  the  service,2 

1  The  cost  of  these  improvements  from  1889  to  1907  amounted  to  upward  of 
£10,000,000. 

2  London  Manual  (1906),  42. 


368 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


Tramways 
operated  by 
the  council. 


Under- 
ground 
transit. 


a  sum,  it  may  be  added,  less  than  the  amount  which 
the  fire-protection  service  of  the  city  of  Boston  costs  its 
citizens.1 

In  providing  major  public  utilities  the  council  has  shown 
unusual  activity.  The  county  now  owns  about  one  hundred 
and  thirty  miles  of  tramway  lines,  some  of  them  acquired 
by  purchase  from  private  companies  and  some  constructed 
by  the  council.  Much  more  would  have  been  undertaken 
in  this  direction  but  for  the  fact  that  the  County  Council 
cannot  lay  lines  upon  any  street  without  the  permission  of 
the  councils  of  the  various  metropolitan  boroughs,2  who, 
as  the  local  road  authorities,  have  time  and  again  refused 
the  desired  license.  Hence  it  is  that  the  county  is  ill  served 
as  regards  tramways,  having  only  about  one  mile  of  lines 
to  every  30,000  population,  whereas  more  than  half  the 
cities  of  the  United  States  have  a  mile  or  more  for  every 
2000.3  As  a  manager  of  tramways,  however,  the  council 
has  had  tolerable  success.  The  net  profits  accruing  to  the 
public  treasury  have  not  been  very  large,  it  is  true ;  but 
this  circumstance  has  been  due,  in  part  at  least,  to  the 
policy  of  running  workingmen's  cars  with  reduced  fares, 
to  the  increases  that  have  been  granted  in  the  wages  of 
drivers  and  conductors,  to  the  institution  of  a  ten-hour 
day  for  employees,  to  the  inauguration  of  all-night  car 
services,  and  to  other  like  innovations  of  a  costly  nature. 
Moreover,  the  council  has  shown  itself  able  to  keep  the 
management  fairly  clear  of  local  politics,  and,  so  far  as  its 
lines  extend,  to  provide  a  satisfactory  service.  It  is  per- 
haps unfortunate  that  it  did  not  exert  more  zeal  in  an 
endeavor  to  get  hold  of  the  underground  transit  facilities, 

1  Bureau  of  the  Census,  Statistics  of  Cities  (1906),  136-137. 

2  33-34  Victoria,  c.  78,  §  4. 

8  An  interesting  table,  showing  the  ratio  between  street-railway  trackage  and 
population  in  the  United  Kingdom  and  the  United  States,  may  be  found  in  H.  R. 
Meyer's  Municipal  Ownership  in  Great  Britain  (New  York,  1906),  89. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  369 

for  it  is  here  that  the  greatest  developments  of  the  future 
are  likely  to  occur.  At  any  rate,  private  companies  have 
had  their  own  way  in  this  field  thus  far,  and  are  likely  to 
have  it  for  many  years  to  come. 

In  its  attempt  to  cope  with  one  other  factor  of  the  The  Thames 
transportation  problem  of  the  metropolis,  the  council 
seems  to  have  met  with  little  success.  There  has  always 
been  an  idea  among  Londoners  that  the  congestion  of  pas- 
senger traffic  in  the  streets  might  be  greatly  relieved  by  a 
more  extensive  use  of  the  Thames ;  and  for  a  time  a 
steamboat  service  was  maintained  by  a  private  company. 
The  patronage  proving  too  small,  however,  to  warrant 
any  extension  of  the  service,  the  enterprise  was  in  1905 
about  to  be  given  up  altogether,  when  the  County  Council, 
despite  the  company's  unprofitable  experience,  at  once 
took  over  the  investment,  expanding  and  improving  it  at 
heavy  cost.  One  of  the  Progressive  leaders  estimated 
that  it  could  be  made  to  yield  a  net  profit  of  about 
X  100,000  per  annum ; 1  but  three  years  of  operation  have 
shown  that  the  council  cannot  even  make  both  ends  meet, 
and  must  ask  the  ratepayers  to  shoulder  an  annual  deficit 
as  the  outcome  of  the  venture.  This  unfortunate  experi- 
ment has  laid  the  Progressives  open  to  much  criticism,  and 
doubtless  contributed  somewhat  to  their  defeat  in  the 
elections  of  1907. 

An  important  branch  of  the  council's  work  is  connected  Theconn- 

.  .  f  j    cil'shous- 

witn  the  erection  and  maintenance  of  dwellings  and  ing  policy, 
lodging-houses  for  the  working  classes.  The  statutes  re- 
quire that,  wherever  the  council  displaces  any  population 
in  order  to  make  way  for  public  improvements,  it  shall 
provide  for  the  rehousing,  in  the  immediate  neighborhood, 
of  an  equal  number  of  persons.  In  addition  to  these 
mandatory  statutes  a  number  of  permissive  acts  have 

1  Sir  E.  Cornwall,  in  the  London  Times,  May  9,  1903. 

2B 


370  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

empowered  the  council,  as  well  as  other  local  authorities, 
to  demolish  insanitary  buildings  and  replace  them  by 
modern  structures,  due  compensation  being  of  course 
awarded  to  the  owners  of  the  expropriated  property. 
Under  both  the  above  classes  of  powers  the  County  Coun- 
cil has  embarked  extensively  upon  housing  schemes.  In 
one  case  it  laid  waste  a  tract  of  nearly  fifteen  acres  and 
immediately  rebuilt  it  with  model  tenements  that  now 
accommodate  upward  of  5000  persons.1  Many  less  ex- 
tensive undertakings  of  the  same  nature  have  been  put 
through  by  the  council,  till  at  the  present  time  the  dwell- 
ings and  lodging-houses  which  it  has  provided  accommodate 
about  35,000  persons,  a  small-sized  city  of  themselves. 
As  to  the  success  of  these  housing  enterprises  opinions 
differ  widely  ;  for  one's  judgment  of  the  matter  will  de- 
pend largely  upon  whether  one  emphasizes  the  financial  or 
the  social  aspects  of  the  question.  At  any  rate,  the  mu- 
nicipal tenements  have  managed  to  pay  their  way,  which 
is  all  that  has  been  expected  of  them. 

The  relation       By   the   London    Education    Act    of    1903    the    County 
cii  to  the       Council  took  the  place  of  the  old  London  school  board  as 


authority  for  elementary  education,  its  powers 
in  this  capacity  being  exercised  through  an  Education 
Committee  of  forty-three  members,  which  at  the  present 
time  has  charge  of  both  elementary  and  higher  education, 
including  the  management  of  the  technical  schools.  In 
facilities  of  the  latter  sort  London  was,  until  very  re- 
cently, singularly  deficient  ;  but  during  the  last  twenty 
years  the  council  has  achieved  much  in  the  direction  of 
technical  education,  both  by  grants  of  money  to  institu- 
tions founded  by  private  patronage  and  by  direct  under- 
takings of  its  own.  The  story  of  what  it  has  accomplished 

1  This  was  the  Boundary  Street  area  in  Bethnal  Green.    The  experiment  is 
described  in  Owen  Fleming's  Working-Class  Dwellings  (London,  1900). 


THE   GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  371 

in  this  field  would,  indeed,  form  one  of  the  most  creditable 
chapters  in  any  narration  of  its  work. 

Besides  all  these  main  lines  of  service,  there  are  various  other 
other  fields  of  metropolitan  administration  in  which  the  mentis  the 
London  County  Council  has  displayed  its  activity.  It  council- 
has  provided  additional  as}7lum  accommodation  for  imbe- 
ciles and  inebriates;  although  the  general  supervision  of 
public  charity  is  not  within  its  jurisdiction,  it  has  under- 
taken sundry  measures  for  the  relief  of  the  unemployed ; 
it  has  taken  various  steps  to  insure  the  proper  preserva- 
tion of  historic  places  and  buildings ;  it  has  provided  a 
multitude  of  public  entertainments,  as  well  as  unique 
facilities  for  athletic  sports ;  and  it  has  sought  in  many 
other  ways  to  ameliorate  the  conditions  of  life  in  a  con- 
gested area.  If  one  will  refer  to  the  Hcmdbook  of  the 
Work  of  the  London  County  Council,  which  has  been 
issued  yearly  since  1900,  one  will  find  that  this  list  of 
minor  or  subsidiary  activities  is  very  extensive,  touching 
almost  every  walk  of  everyday  life  in  the  metropolis.  It 
has  been  the  particular  aim  of  the  council  to  improve  the 
conditions  and  environment  of  the  employed  classes  ;  hence 
certain  of  its  enterprises  have  been  justified  in  the  minds  of 
some  persons  not  so  much  for  their  intrinsic  merit  as  for 
their  "  beneficent  social  reactions." *  It  has,  for  example, 
striven  to  take  rank  as  a  model  employer  of  labor,  in  the 
hope  that  its  example  might  be  followed  by  private  con- 
tractors ;  it  has  professed  a  "  temperance  policy,"  the 
chief  principle  of  which  is  that,  wherever  the  council  ac- 
quires by  expropriation  any  property  which  includes 
licensed  premises,  the  licenses  are  thereby  abandoned ; 
and  in  many  other  ways  it  has  shown  that,  however  opin- 
ions may  differ  as  to  its  soundness  of  judgment,  it  has  at 
least  been  enterprising,  versatile,  and  aggressive. 

1  George  Bernard  Shaw,  The  Common  Sense  of  Municipal  Trading  (London, 
1904V 


372  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

Costly  na-          All    these   undertakings   have,  of    course,  cost    money. 

work?  Most  of  them  have  been  so  broad  in  scope  and  expensive 

in  character  that  they  could  not  be  paid  for  out  of  the 
annual  rates  ;  and  the  laws  have  not  permitted,  on  any 
large  scale,  the  practice  of  assessing  a  part  of  the  cost 
upon  the  owners  of  private  properties  that  may  have  been 
directly  benefited  by  the  enterprises.  In  some  instances 
(as,  for  example,  in  the  construction  of  the  new  King's 
Way)  the  council  has  taken  over  more  land  than  was 
needed  for  the  improvement,  and  then,  to  offset  part  of 
the  expense,  has  sold  back  at  greatly  enchanced  prices 
such  portions  as  were  not  utilized.  In  the  main,  how- 
ever, the  county  authorities  have  found  it  necessary  to 
raise  funds  by  borrowing  on  the  credit  of  the  munici- 

The  pality.  Year  by  year  the  county  debt  has  mounted 

steadily,  until  at  the  present  time  the  liabilities  for  which 
the  County  Council  is  directly  responsible  stand  well 
above  quarter  of  a  billion  dollars ;  and  if  to  this  be  added 
the  enormous  consolidated  indebtedness  of  the  Metropoli- 
tan Water  Board,  which  is  for  the  most  part  an  obligation 
upon  the  ratepayers  of  the  county,  the  debt  of  London 
passes  the  half-billion  mark.  It  must  be  remembered, 
moreover,  that  each  of  the  twenty-eight  London  boroughs 
has  its  own  local  debt.  If  all  these  obligations  be  put  to- 
gether, it  will  appear  that  the  English  metropolis  is  bear- 
ing a  grievous  financial  burden,  most  of  which  has  been 
accumulated  during  the  past  two  decades.  Much  of  this 
debt  is  offset,  it  is  true,  by  substantial  assets  in  the  form 
of  a  water  system,  several  tramway  lines,  hundreds  of 
workingmen's  dwellings,  and  so  forth,  —  a  showing,  it  is 
fair  to  add,  which  could  hardly  be  made  by  some  Ameri- 
can cities  that  have  larger  per  capita  debts  than  that  of 
metropolitan  London.  Still,  there  is  a  feeling  among  a 
large  element  of  Londoners  that  the  County  Council  has 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  373 

been  too  prodigal  of  the  county's  credit,  that  it  has 
earned  only  too  well  its  title  of  "the  world's  greatest  spend- 
thrift." l  It  is,  indeed,  to  the  strength  which  this  idea  has 
gained  during  the  last  few  years  that  the  accession  of  the 
Reformers  to  power  at  the  last  council  elections  may,  in 
part  at  least,  be  attributed.  Nevertheless,  there  is  no  ques- 
tion that  the  efficiency  of  London's  local  administration 
has  been  improved  almost  beyond  recognition  during  the 
past  twenty  years,  and  that  for  this  betterment  the  London 
County  Council  should  have  its  due  share  of  credit. 

When  the  administrative  County  of  London  was  organ-  Local  ad- 
ized  in  1888,  no  serious  attempt  was  made  to  reorganize  ^"^the0 
the  structure  and  powers  of  the  multitude  of  local  author-  metropolis, 
ities,  such  as  parish  vestries  and  district  boards,  that 
had  been  exercising  all  sorts  of  local  functions  within  the 
limits  of  the  new  county.  For  the  time  being  these  local 
authorities  continued  to  exert  such  powers  as  had  not  been 
taken  over  by  the  County  Council ;  but  their  work  was 
entirely  unsatisfactory,  for  there  were  so  many  of  them 
that  each  exercised  its  functions  within  a  very  limited  area. 
Within  the  limits  of  the  old  city  there  were  no  fewer 
than  one  hundred  and  thirteen  parishes,  each  with  its  own 
vestry ;  and  outside  the  city  proper,  but  within  the  ad- 
ministrative county,  there  were  seventy-eight  parishes,  of 
which  thirty  administered  their  local  affairs  through  ves- 
tries selected  by  the  parochial  voters,  the  remainder  being 
grouped  into  twelve  districts  with  a  board  for  each  district. 
As  the  parochial  voters  had  very  little  interest  in  the 
parish  elections,  and  as  the  vestries  and  boards  were  com- 
posed for  the  most  part  of  men  who  took  little  initia- 
tive in  any  local  matter,  the  result  was  a  hopeless 
decentralization  of  powers  and  responsibilities  that  ren- 

1  R.  P.  Porter,  The  Dangers  of  Municipal  Ownership  (New  York,  1907),  oh. 
ix. 


374 


GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 


Reorganiza- 
tion of  local 
administra- 
tion in  1899- 
1900. 


The  met- 
ropolitan 
borough. 


dered  almost  impossible  any  considerable  improvement  in 
the  local  services  which  these  authorities  controlled.1 

After  spending  considerable  time  in  the  discussion  of 
various  aspects  of  the  problem,  Parliament  passed  the 
London  Government  Act  of  1899,  which  went  into  opera- 
tion in  the  autumn  of  1900.2  The  terms  of  this  enactment 
left  the  parishes  and  parish  organizations  within  the  old 
city  just  as  they  were  ;  but  the  act  abolished  all  vestries 
and  district  boards  that  had  been  exercising  jurisdiction 
within  the  outer  area,  and  then  provided  for  the  division 
of  the  administrative  county  (outside  the  city)  into  twenty- 
eight  metropolitan  boroughs.  These  boroughs  are  very 
unequal  in  area  and  population,  but  they  show  that  an 
attempt  was  made  to  weld  together  units  which  had  some 
community  of  interest  and  tradition.3  Each  borough  has 
a  local  government  consisting  of  a  mayor,  not  more  than 
ten  aldermen,  and  not  more  than  sixty  councillors,  all  sit- 
ting together  to  form  a  borough  council.  The  councillors 
are  elected  by  the  borough  voters,  the  aldermen  and  the 
mayor  by  the  council.  The  qualifications  for  voting,  the 
procedure  in  nominations  and  elections,  and  the  other 
incidents  of  organization  are  almost  identical  with  those  in 
vogue  in  the  ordinary  boroughs  of  the  country.4  Borough 
elections  are  fought  out  upon  party  lines  which  coincide 

1  John  Hunt,  London  Local  Government  (2  vols.,  London,  1897). 

2  62-63  Victoria,  c.  14.     There  are  several  commentaries  on  this  enactment, 
including  A.  MacMorran's  London  Government  Act  (London,  1899),  Terry  and 
Morle's  London  Government  Act  (London,  1899),  A.  Bassett  HopMns's  Boroughs 
of  the  Metropolis  (London,  1900),  and  J.  Renwick  Seager's  Government  of  Lon- 
don under  the  London  Government  Act  (London,  1904). 

8  These  boroughs  are  Battersea,  Bennondsey,  Bethnal  Green,  Camberwell, 
Chelsea,  Deptford,  Finsbury,  Fulham,  Greenwich,  Hackney,  Hammersmith, 
Hampstead,  Holborn,  Islington,  Kensington,  Lambeth,  Lewisham,  Paddington, 
Poplar,  St.  Marylebone,  St.  Pancras,  Shoreditch,  Southwark,  Stepney,  Stoke- 
Newington,  Wandsworth,  Woolich,  and  the  City  of  Westminster. 

*  For  further  information,  see  John  Hunt's  Metropolitan  Borough  Council's 
Elections  (London,  1900). 


THE   GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  375 

with  those  of  county  elections,  the  chief  ground  of  division 
in  the  borough  as  in  the  county  being  the  issue  of  munici- 
pal socialism.  At  the  elections  of  1900  and  1903,  despite 
the  fact  that  the  Progressives  controlled  the  County  Coun- 
cil, the  Moderates  carried  most  of  the  boroughs,  and  at  the 
elections  of  1906  they  made  sweeping  gains,  —  facts  that 
bear  striking  evidence  to  the  volatile  nature  of  London  poli- 
tics. Party  considerations  are  also  influential  in  the  organ- 
ization of  the  committees  through  which  the  borough 
councils  perform  the  work  of  detailed  administration ;  but 
in  all  other  important  incidents  the  procedure  of  these  coun- 
cils conforms  closely  to  that  of  the  regular  English  type. 

In  scope  of  jurisdiction,  however,  the  metropolitan  bor- 
ough councils  are  somewhat  more  limited  than  the  councils 
of  ordinary  cities.  Their  main  powers,  given  to  them  in  Poweraof 

the 

1900,  are  those  which  had  previously  been  exercised  by  the  boroughs, 
local  vestries  and  boards,  together  with  some  minor  func- 
tions that  had  hitherto  been  held  by  the  County  Council.1 
In  general  the  borough  council  is  the  local  highway  au- 
thority. The  county  constructs  all  main  highways ;  but 
the  borough  attends  to  all  purely  local  enterprises  in  the 
way  of  street  improvements,  including  maintenance,  pav- 
ing, lighting,  cleansing,  and  watering.  It  may  also  under- 
take the  construction  and  maintenance  of  subsidiary  sewers, 
and  the  enforcement  of  most  of  the  provisions  in  the  Pub- 
lic Health  Act.  It  may  provide  workingmen's  dwellings 
and  lodging-houses ;  it  has  charge  of  public  baths  and 
wash-houses ;  it  looks  after  the  public  libraries ;  and  it 
controls  the  local  cemeteries.  The  borough  councils  like- 
wise enjoy  wide  powers  in  connection  with  the  electric- 
lighting  service ;  at  the  present  time  about  half  of  them 
have  municipal  plants  in  operation,  and  the  rest  have 

1  For  an  exact  statement  of  these  powers,  see  the  special  works  cited  above, 
p.  374,  note  2. 


376  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

arranged  with  private  concerns  for  the  supply.  For  either 
direct  operation  or  the  grant  of  a  franchise  the  authority 
of  the  Board  of  Trade  is  required ;  and  this  is  had  by 
means  of  a  provisional  order.1  By  similar  orders  of  the 
Local  Government  Board  further  powers  may  be  trans- 
ferred to  the  borough  councils  from  the  County  Council, 
or  vice  versa,  whenever  it  appears  that  the  County  Council 
and  a  majority  of  the  borough  councils  are  in  agreement 
upon  the  point  of  transfer.  Matters  which  in  the  ordinary 
English  city  come  within  the  control  of  the  council,  but 
which  in  the  metropolitan  boroughs  are  not  exercised  by 
the  corresponding  bodies,  are  main  drainage,  fire  protection, 
police,  transportation,  water  supply,  and  education. 

On  the  whole,  the  system  of  borough  government  within 
the  administrative  county  has  worked  well.2  Local  ad- 
ministration during  the  past  eight  or  nine  years  shows  a 
very  marked  improvement  over  the  old  regime  of  parish 
vestries  and  district  boards,  as  any  one  who  knows  Lon- 
don, old  and  new,  can  readily  testify.  There  are  com- 
plaints, however,  that  the  authorities  of  the  boroughs,  like 
those  of  the  county,  have  been  extravagant  and  have  too 
Borough  often  made  their  appearance  in  the  loan  market.  Each 
borough  council  has,  of  course,  power  to  levy  its  own  local 
rate  or  municipal  tax,  and  its  action  in  this  matter  is  not 
subject  to  the  approval  of  any  higher  authority.  If  it 
wishes  to  borrow  money,  however,  it  must,  save  in  excep- 
tional cases  covered  by  special  statute,  obtain  the  assent 
of  the  London  County  Council ;  and  if  that  body  refuse 
permission,  it  may  appeal  to  the  Local  Government  Board, 
which  has  authority  to  override  the  county's  veto.  Strin- 
gent as  are  these  limitations  upon  the  borrowing  powers 

1  Of.  above,  p.  268. 

2  A  summary  of  the  work  performed  by  each  borough  is  given  annually  in 
the  London  Manual. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  377 

of  the  metropolitan  boroughs,  they  seem  not  to  have 
proved  a  very  effectual  check ;  for  all  the  boroughs  have 
funded  debts,  and  in  some  cases  the  indebtedness  is  very 
heavy.1  Since,  however,  much  of  it  has  been  incurred  in 
the  establishment  of  electric-lighting  plants  and  the  erec- 
tion of  workingmen's  dwellings,  there  are  in  some  boroughs 
marketable  assets  to  nearly  the  entire  amount  of  the 
liabilities. 

With  two  functions  that  are  ordinarily  intrusted  to 
local  authorities  neither  the  County  Council  nor  the  met- 
ropolitan borough  councils  have  anything  to  do,  —  namely, 
with  the  control  of  police  and  of  poor  relief.  So  far  as 
the  old  city  is  concerned,  the  policing  of  London  is  in  the 
hands  of  a  committee  of  the  Court  of  Common  Council. 
Beyond  the  old  limits  it  is  in  the  care  of  a  metropolitan 
police  commissioner,  who  has  jurisdiction  over  what  is 
called  the  Metropolitan  Police  District,  an  area  of  nearly  TheMet- 
seven  hundred  square  miles  comprising  the  whole  of  the  Po^ce*" 
County  of  London  and  a  considerable  territory  outside.  Distnct- 
This  district  was  established  by  Peel's  Act  of  1829,  which 
gave  London  its  first  body  of  professional,  uniformed 
police.  By  this  legislation  the  new  metropolitan  police 
were  kept  directly  under  the  control  of  the  Home  Office ; 
but  by  the  act  of  1856,  which  changed  the  system  in  some 
respects,  they  were  put  in  charge  of  a  commissioner  ap- 
pointed by  the  home  secretary  and  responsible  to  that 
official.2  This  commissioner  is  not  chosen  for  any  definite 
term,  but  holds  office  during  the  pleasure  of  the  Home 
Office.  Nor  is  the  appointment  political ;  for  the  incum- 
bent is  almost  invariably  a  man  of  extensive  administrative 
experience,  and  usually  one  who  has  been  in  either  the 

1  The  borough  of  St.  Marylebone,  for  example,  has  an   indebtedness  that 
exceeds  the  total  rateable  value  of  all  property  within  the  borough  limits. 

2  19-20  Victoria,  c.  69. 


378 


Organiza- 
tion of  the 
metropoli- 
tan police. 


Poor  relief. 


military  or  the  civil  service  of  the  nation.  The  office  com- 
mands a  salary  of  .£2000  per  annum,  and  employs  a  corps 
of  three  assistant  commissioners  (appointed  like  the  princi- 
pal one)  and  five  chief  constables.  The  metropolitan  police 
force  now  consists  of  over  17,000  men  of  all  ranks,  a  mem- 
bership that  gives  it  place  as  the  largest  body  of  its  kind. 
The  cost  of  maintaining  this  huge  establishment  is  con- 
siderably less  than  $10,000,000  per  year,  a  sum  that  is  ex- 
ceeded by  New  York  City  in  the  maintenance  of  a  force  not 
half  so  large.  Four-ninths  of  the  total  cost  is  assumed  by 
the  national  government.  The  commissioner  has  entire 
charge  of  organization  and  discipline ;  but  the  financial  ad- 
ministration of  the  force  is  intrusted  to  a  receiver,  appointed 
by  the  crown,  who  is  responsible  for  the  erection  and 
management  of  all  police  stations,  the  awarding  of  con- 
tracts, the  purchase  of  supplies,  and  for  all  other  matters 
outside  the  actual  work  of  preserving  law  and  order.1 
The  high  standard  of  efficiency  that  is  maintained  by 
the  metropolitan  police  force  is  a  matter  of  world-wide 
knowledge. 

The  administration  of  London's  poor  relief  is  in  the 
hands  of  more  than  thirty  boards  of  guardians,  which  have 
jurisdiction  over  as  many  poor-law  unions  or  local  dis- 
tricts. These  guardians  are  elective  boards,  each  levying 
and  expending  its  own  special  poor  rate ;  but  they  are 
subject  to  very  close  supervision  by  the  Local  Government 
Board.  The  Metropolitan  Poor  Act  of  1867  provided  also 
for  the  establishment  of  an  Asylums  Board,  which  supplies 
and  maintains  public  hospitals  for  the  poor. 

1  There  is,  so  far  as  I  am  aware,  no  monograph  on  the  metropolitan  police 
system.  Only  in  the  Home  Office  reports  and  the  annual  reports  of  the  metro- 
politan commissioner  can  one  find  much  information  about  its  detailed  organi- 
zation, though  mention  may  be  made  of  the  Report  of  the  Royal  Commission  on 
the  Duties  of  the  Metropolitan  Police  (1908),  and  the  long  series  of  articles  which 
appeared  in  the  London  Times  during  January,  1909. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ENGLISH  CITIES  379 

These,  then,  are  the  various  authorities,  more  than  two  other  Lon- 
hundred  in  all,  that  exercise  jurisdiction  within  the  con- 
fines  of  the  metropolis.  More  than  half  the  number, 
including  the  vestries  of  one  hundred  and  thirteen  parishes 
with  no  powers  of  importance,  operate  within  the  limits  of 
the  old  city.  In  the  outer  area  the  present  authorities  are 
the  County  Council,  the  councils  of  the  twenty-eight 
boroughs,  the  metropolitan  police  commissioner,  the  thirty- 
one  boards  of  poor-law  guardians,  the  Asylums  Board,  the 
Metropolitan  Water  Board,  and  the  Thames  Conservancy. 
There  seems,  in  truth,  to  be  considerable  room  for  simplifi- 
cation in  the  machinery  of  metropolitan  government. 


CHAPTER   IV 

SOURCES    AND    LITERATURE 

PART   I 
FRENCH  CITIES 

BIBLIOGRAPHIES.  The  best  general  bibliography  of  the  literature  relat- 
ing to  French  and  other  European  cities  is  R.  C.  Brooks,  Bibliography  of 
Municipal  Problems  and  City  Conditions  (New  York,  1901).  This  compilation 
is  admirably  arranged,  and  at  the  time  of  its  issue  was  as  comprehensive  in 
scope  as  one  could  desire.  In  the  field  of  French  municipal  administration 
much  has  been  written  during  the  past  half-dozen  years,  however,  and 
record  of  this  has  not  been  compiled  in  any  single  publication.  The  Cata- 
logue de  la  bibliotheque  administrative  du  de'partement  de  la  Seine  (2  vols.  Paris, 
1898)  affords  useful  lists  of  the  older  books ;  and  the  Catalogue  des  limes 
composant  la  bibliotheque  du  conseil  municipal  de  Paris  (Paris,  1904)  contains 
a  less  extensive  but  more  modern  list. 

OFFICIAL  AND  SEMI-OFFICIAL  PUBLICATIONS.  The  national  laws  relat- 
ing to  French  city  government  may  be  found  in  the  Bulletin  des  lois  de  la 
Republique  Francaise  (issued  annually),  and  the  more  important  enactments, 
such  as  the  municipal  code  of  1884,  are  also  printed  separately  for  distribu- 
tion. Attention  may  be  called  particularly  to  Leon  Morgand's  commentary 
on  this  enactment  (see  below,  p.  386).  The  discussions,  which  in  the  Senate 
or  Chamber  of  Deputies  precede  the  passing  of  laws,  are  embodied  in  the 
Journal  officiel  of  each  of  these  bodies,  and  printed  annually  under  official 
auspices.  The  Circulates  ministe'rielles,  issued  by  the  Ministere  de  ITnterieur, 
are  printed  at  the  time  of  issue  for  distribution  to  the  local  authorities. 
Copies  of  these  are  kept  on  file  at  the  mairie  of  each  commune.  Statis- 
tical material  relating  to  French  cities  in  general  may  be  drawn  from  the 
Annuaire  statistique,  and  all  matters  relating  to  municipal  finance  are  fully 
set  forth  in  the  annual  publication  known  as  the  Situation  Jinanciere  des 
communes. 

For  the  study  of  Paris  government  the  chief  official  sources  are  the  Rap- 
ports et  documents  du  conseil  municipal  de  Paris  (printed  annually  since 
1871) ;  the  Bulletin  municipal  officiel  de  la  ville  de  Paris  (issued  from  the 
Imprimerie  municipale  at  monthly  intervals  since  July  1,  1882)  ;  the  Annu- 
aire statistique  de  la  ville  de  Paris  (giving  each  year  the  figures  for  the  sec- 
ond year  preceding) ;  and  the  Encyclopedie  municipale  de  la  ville  de  Paris 
(2  vols.  Paris,  1904).  The  last-named  publication  contains  a  formidable 
amount  of  the  most  useful  data,  conveniently  arranged  for  use.  Paul  Mas- 
sat's  Manuel  de  legislation  administrative  spe'ciale  a  la  ville  de  Paris  et  au 

380 


SOURCES  AND  LITERATURE  381 

departement  de  la  Seine  (Paris,  1901)  embodies  the  nearest  approach  which 
Parisians  have  to  a  city  charter. 

Some  of  the  larger  communes  issue  Annuaires  and  Bulletins  dealing  with 
their  own  local  activities;  but  these  are  not  of  much  service  to  the  general 
student,  as  they  usually  require,  for  any  intelligent  interpretation,  consider- 
able knowledge  of  local  conditions. 

JURISPRUDENCE.  The  decisions  of  the  administrative  courts  relating  to 
the  rights  and  responsibilities  of  French  municipalities  and  their  officials 
may  be  found  in  the  Recueil  des  arrets  du  Conseil  d'Btat  staluant  au  conten- 
tieux,  des  decisions  du  Tribunal  des  Conflits,  et  de  la  Cour  des  Comptes  (2d 
series.  Ed.  Panhard.  78  vols.  Paris,  1831-1908) ;  but  only  a  few  of  the 
largest  American  law  libraries  have  this  compilation.  Leon  Bequet's  Reper- 
toire du  droit  administratif  (25  vols.  Paris,  1882-1908)  is  more  often  avail- 
able for  consultation,  and  will  be  found  nearly  as  serviceable.  Additional 
volumes  in  both  of  the  foregoing  sets  are  published  annually. 

The  civil  code  of  France  touches  local  administration  at  many  points,  as, 
for  example,  in  connection  with  the  care  of  the  local  e'tat  civil.  On  such 
matters  accurate  information  may  be  had  from  any  of  the  various  commen- 
taries on  the  code.  Of  these,  Gabriel  Baudry-Lacantinerie's  Traite  theorique 
et  pratique  de  droit  civil  (26  vols.  Paris,  1899-1907)  has  been  found  to  be  the 
most  useful  so  far  as  it  goes,  but  it  is  not  yet  complete. 

PERIODICALS.  France  is  well  supplied  with  periodical  literature  devoted 
to  the  consideration  of  municipal  affairs.  The  Journal  des  conseillers  munici- 
paux  and  the  Journal  des  maires  are  monthly  publications  designed  to  be  of 
service  to  persons  directly  connected  with  communal  administration,  and 
are  devoted  mainly  to  explanations  of  new  laws,  reports  of  decisions  made 
by  the  administrative  courts,  and  so  on.  The  Revue  communale  (published 
monthly)  and  the  Revue  municipale  (published  semi-monthly)  are  somewhat 
broader  in  their  scope,  and  usually  contain  some  short  articles,  as  well  as 
administrative  notes  and  news.  In  addition  to  those  specialized  periodicals, 
the  regular  political  reviews  devote  considerable  attention  to  municipal 
matters.  The  Revue  gene'rale  d' administration  is  the  most  serviceable  of 
these,  and  its  regular  numbers  should  be  followed  carefully  by  any  one  who 
desires  to  keep  in  touch  with  any  branch  of  French  administration.  The 
Revue  politique  et  parlementaire  and  the  Revue  du  droit  public  frequently 
contain  contributions  bearing  on  French  city  government ;  and  occasionally 
one  may  find  informing  articles  of  the  same  sort  in  the  more  popular  pub- 
lications, like  the  Revue  des  Deux-Mondes. 

MISCELLANEOUS  BOOKS  (arranged  alphabetically). 

ADAMS,  ALPHONSE.  Guide  pratique  du  percepteur-receveur  municipal. 
Paris,  1897. 

ANDERSON,  F.  M.  Constitutions  and  other  Select  Documents  illustrative 
of  the  History  of  France.  Minneapolis,  1904. 

Contains  English  versions  of  the  more  important  enactments  relating  to  local 
administration,  but  not  the  Municipal  Code. 


382  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

ARXAT,  G.     Les  pouvoirs  et  roles  des  maires  au  point  de  vue  de  la  pro- 
tection de  la  sante  publique.     Paris,  1905. 

ARTIGUES,  G.     Le  regime  municipal  de  la  ville  de  Paris.    Paris,  1898. 

One  of  the  best  short  works  on  contemporary  Paris  government. 
ASHLEY,  PERCY  W.  L.    Local  and  Central  Government.     London,  1906. 

A  consideration  of  the  structure  and  functions  of  the  local  authorities  in  France, 
Germany,  and  Great  Britain,  with  special  emphasis  upon  the  relations  of  local  to 
central  government. 

BABEAU,  ALBERT.     La  ville  sous  1'ancien  regime.     Paris,  1880. 
Somewhat  obsolete,  but  contains  much  interesting  and  useful  material. 

BAUER,  LEON.     Les  devoirs  des  maires  et  des  municipalites  en  ce  qui 
concerne  1'arinee.     Paris,  1894. 

A  lengthy  discussion  of  the  mayor's  military  functions. 

BEQUET,  L.    Le  conseil  d'Etat.     Paris,  1891. 

The  powers  and  procedure  of  that  court  to  which  all  contested  matters  relating 
to  the  powers  of  municipal  officials  are  finally  referred. 

BERTHE"LEMY,  H.     Traite  de  droit  administratif.     5th  ed.     Paris,  1908. 
A  very  serviceable  volume  on  contemporary  French  administration,  concise, 
well  arranged,  accurate,  and  readable. 

BERTHELEMY,  H.     "Les  institutions   municipales   de  la    France,"    in 
Schriften  des  Vereins  fur  Sozialpolitik,  Vol.  123,  Part  vii. 

BERTHELEMY,  J.     "De  1'exercice  de  la  souverainete  par  1'autorite  ad- 
ministrative," in  Revue  du  droit  public,  1904. 

BLOCK,  M.     L'administration  de  la  ville  de  Paris  et  du  departement  de 
la  Seine.    Paris,  1898. 

A  comprehensive  description  of  Parisian  administration. 

BODLEY,  J.  E.  C.     France.     2  vols.     London,  1898. 

An  interesting  work  on  the  government  of  the  French  Republic,  discussing  in 
readable  fashion  many  phases  of  French  political  life. 

BOURDEAU,  E.     "  Le  socialisme  municipal,"  in  Revue  des  Deux-Mondes, 
July,  1900. 

BOURGUEIL,  E.    Le  vade-mecum  de  1'instituteur  secretaire  de  mairie. 
Paris,  1892. 

BRES,  EUGENE.     De  la  municipalisation  des  services  d'interet  public. 
Paris,  1904. 

CENAC,  ERNEST.    La  liste  electorate,  sa  composition  et  sa  revision  annu- 
elle.    Paris,  1890. 

CHARDENET,  PANHARD,  ET  GERARD.    Les  elections  municipales.     Paris, 

1896. 

A  commentary  on  the  laws  relating  to  municipal  elections  and  electoral  pro- 
cedure. 


SOURCES  AND  LITERATURE  383 

CHASSAGNE,  DR.     Dix-neuf  ans  du  conseil  municipal  elu  de  la  ville  de 
Paris,  1871-1890.     3  vols.     Paris,  1893. 

Contains  much  interesting  matter  concerning  the  personnel  and  work  of  the 
Paris  council. 

CHRETIEN,  H.     De  1'organisation  du  conseil  municipal  de  Paris.    Paris, 
1906. 

A  thesis.    Somewhat  superficial,  but  containing  useful  data  concerning  council 
procedure. 

CLERAY,  EDMOND.     De  la  mise  en  valeur  des  biens  communaux.    Paris, 
1900. 

COLSON,  C.    Abrege  de  la  legislation  des  chemins  de  fer  et  tramways. 
2d  ed.     Paris,  1904. 

COMBARIEU,  A.     "  La  mairie  centrale  de  Paris,"  in  Revue  politique  et 
parlementaire,  July  10,  1897. 

COURCELLE,  L.     Traite  de  la  voirie.     Paris,  1900 

A  standard  work. 
CROISSY,  T.  DE.     Dictionnaire  municipal.      2  vols.    Paris,  1903. 

An  extremely  useful  work  for  general  reference.    It  is  almost  indispensable  to 
students  of  local  administration  in  France. 

DALEM,  LUCIEN.     Des  voies  de  recours  centre  les  deliberations  des  con- 
seils  municipaux.     Paris,  1904. 

DAURE,  J.    Manuel  pratique  de  la  revision  des  listes  electorates.    Paris, 
1898. 

DELA!TRE,  J.     La  municipality  parisienne  et  les  projeta  de  re"forme. 
Paris,  1902. 

A  useful  thesis. 

DELEST,  ANDRE.    Nomination  et  revocation  des  fonctionnaires.    Paris, 

1899. 

A  doctoral  thesis  on  the  power  of  appointment  and  removal. 

DESBATS,  A.  G.     Le  budget  municipal.    Paris,  1885. 
DESTRUELS,  E.     Manuel  de  l'ofncier  de  I'e'tat  civil.     Paris,  1903. 

DISLERE,  PAUL.     Les  devoirs  des  maires  en  cas  de  mobilisation  ge'ne'rale. 
Paris,  1893. 

A  short  discussion  of  the  mayor's  duties  on  the  outbreak  of  war. 

DODANTHUM,  ALFRED.     Des  affiches  electorates.    Paris,  1903. 
A  discussion  of  the  regulations  relating  to  campaign  posters. 

DORLHAC,  JOSEPH.    De  Pelectorat  politique :   e"tude  sur  la  capacity  elec- 
torate et  les  conditions  d'exercice  du  droit  de  vote.     Paris,  1890. 

DREYFUS,  F.    Manuel  populaire  du  conseiller  municipal.    Paris,  1904. 


384  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

DROUILLE,  J.    Le  pouvoir  disciplinaire  sur  les  fonctionnaires  publics. 
Toulouse,  1900. 

Thesis. 

DUBARRY,  G.     Le  secretaire  de  mairie.     Paris,  1892. 
DUBOIS,  PAUL.    Essai  sur  les  finances  communales.    Paris,  1888. 

DUVERGIER,  J.  B.     Collection  complete  des  lois,  decrets,  ordonnances, 
rdglements,  avis  du  conseil  d'etat.     107  vols.    Paris,  1834-1907. 
The  most  comprehensive  work  of  its  kind. 

ESMEIN,  ADHEMAR.     "La  delegation  du  pouvoir  legislatif,"  in  Revue 
politique  et  parlementaire,  August,  1894. 

ESMEIN,  ADHEMAR.     Histoire  du  droit  fra^ais.     8th  ed.     Paris,  1908. 
The  best  elementary  treatise  on  the  development  of  local  government  law. 

FAIRLIE,  J.   A.     "Municipal   Accounts  and   Statistics  in   Continental 
Europe,"  in  National  Municipal  League  Proceedings,  1901. 

FRANCESCHI,  G.    Manuel  des  maires.    2  vols.     Paris,  1903. 
An  elaborate  digest  of  mayor's  powers  and  duties. 

FRANCESCHI,  G.     Dictionnaire  des  formules  ou  mairie  pratique.    2  vols. 
Paris,  1903. 

GASQUET,  AMEDEE.     Precis  des  institutions  politiques  et  sociales  de 
Pancienne  France.     2  vols.     Paris,  1885. 

Includes  much  valuable  data  concerning  the  government  of  communes  during 
the  old  regime. 

GAUCHERON,  MAURICE.     Etudes  sur  Poeuvre  economique   des  munici- 
palite's.     Paris,  1906. 

A  thesis.    Somewhat  general  in  scope. 

GENNEN,  RENE.     Organisation  municipale  de  Paris.     Paris,  1904. 
A  doctoral  thesis  dealing  mainly  with  projects  of  reform. 

GOODNOW,   F.  J.     Comparative    Administrative    Law.      2d  ed.      New 
York,  1903. 

Originally  issued  in  two  volumes,  but  now  to  be  had  in  a  single  book.    It  is 
much  the  best  work  of  its  kind  in  English. 

GOURGEOIS,  H.     Code  manuel  des  conseillers  municipaux.    Paris,  1890. 

GUERLIN  DE  GUER,  ALBERT.     La  protection  de  la  sante  publique;  les 
pouvoirs  des  maires  et  la  loi  du  15  fevrier,  1902.     Caen,  1903. 

HANOTAUX,  GABRIEL.     Contemporary  France.    3  vols.     London,  1903- 

1907. 

An  illuminating  political  history  of  France  since  1870.    Not  yet  completed. 

HELIE,  F.  A.     Les  constitutions  de  la  France.     Paris,  1880. 

A  convenient  compendium  containing  all  the  more  important  enactments  relat- 
ing to  local  government. 


SOURCES  AND  LITERATURE  385 

JEANVROT,  VICTOR.    Manuel  des  elections  municipales.    Paris,  1892. 
A  useful  work,  but  inferior  to  Saint-Lager's  volume  on  the  same  topic. 

JOUARRE,  L.     Des  pouvoirs  de  1'autorite  municipale  en  matiere  d'hygiene 
et  de  salubrite.    Paris,  1899. 

JOUET,  ALPHONSE.    Les  clubs,  leur  histoire  et  leur  r61e.    Paris,  1891. 

An  interesting  survey  of  the  part  which  the  "  clubs  "  have  played  in  the  politi- 
cal history  of  France  during  the  nineteenth  century. 

JOURDAIN,  GUSTAVE.    Les  pouvoirs  des  maires  en  matiere  de  salubrite 
des  habitations.     3d  ed.     Paris,  1900. 

LA  CHAPELLE,  SEVERIN  DE.     Le  principe  proportionnel  dans  les  elections 
municipales  fra^aises  en  1904.     Paris,  1904. 

In  support  of  the  principle  of  proportional  representation. 

LACROIX,  S.     Rapport  sur  1'organisation  munieipale  de  la  ville  de  Paris. 
Paris,  1880. 

A  plan  for  the  reorganization  of  Paris  government. 
LAGARDE,  M.     La  police  municipale.     Alen9on,  1895. 

LANFANT,  H.    Le  conseil  general  de  la  Seine,  ses  origines  et  attributions. 
Paris,  1903. 

LA  SIZERANNE,  ROBERT  DE  LA.    Le  referendum  communal.    Paris,  1893. 

LAVALEE,  A.     "  Le  regime  administratif  du  departement  de  la  Seine  et 
de  la  ville  de  Paris,"  in  Revue  generale  d' 'administration,  1900-1901,  passim. 
An  excellent  outline. 

LAVERGNE,  P.      "Du  pouvoir  central  et  des  conseils  municipaux,"  in 
Revue  ge'nerale  d' administration,  1900. 

LAVISSE,  E.,  and  RAMBAUD,  A.     Histoire  ge'nerale  du  IVe-  siecle  k  nos 
jours.     12  vols.     Paris,  1896-1908. 

A  monumental  history  on  the  cooperative  plan,  but  not  yet  completed. 
LE  BRETON,  G.     Du  pouvoir  reglementaire  des  presets.    Caen,  1900. 

LECARON,  F.    Les  origines  de  la  municipality  parisienne.     2  vols.    Paris, 
1881-1882. 

The  earlier  municipal  history  of  Paris  with  special  reference  to  the  develop- 
ment of  administrative  institutions. 

LEFOURNIER,  J.     "  Les  battues  communales,"  in  Revue  ge'nerale  d'admin- 
istration,  1888. 

LEONARD,  LEONARD.    L'election  du  maire  de  la  commune  par  le  nouveau 
conseil  municipal,  —  farce  electorate.     Paris,  1902. 

Pamphlet  in  advocacy  of  popular  election  of  mayors. 

LESAGE,  H.     Souvenirs  d'un  maire-adjoint  de  Paris,  1880-1895.     Paris, 
[1898]. 

2c 


386  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

LOWELL,  A.  L.  Governments  and  Parties  in  Continental  Europe.  2  vols. 
Boston,  1897. 

LUCHAIRE,  ACHILLE.      Les  communes  fran9aises.    Paris,  1890. 
A  standard  work  on  communal  history. 

MAGNE  DE  LA  LONDE,  EUGENE.  Les  attributions  du  prefet  de  la  Seine. 
Paris,  1902. 

A  discussion  of  the  position  and  powers  of  the  chief  administrative  officer  of 
Paris. 

MAITHOL,  D.  DE.     Code  des  conseillers  municipaux.     Paris,  1885. 

MARIE,  J.  Le  droit  positif  et  la  juridiction  administrative.  2  vols. 
Paris,  1903. 

MARTINEAU,  R.    Les  secretaires  de  mairie.     Paris,  1906. 
A  thoroughly  good  short  study. 

MASS  AT,  PAUL.  Manuel  de  legislation  administrative  speciale  a  la  ville 
de  Paris  et  au  de"partement  de  la  Seine.  Paris,  1901. 

A  most  useful  compilation  of  all  the  national  laws  relating  to  the  administra- 
tion of  the  French  capital. 

MERCIER,  PIERRE.  Les  exploitations  municipales,  commerciales,  et  in- 
dustrielles  en  France.  Paris,  1905. 

METERIE-LARREY,  L.  F.     Les  emplois  publics.     Paris,  1888. 

A  treatise  on  the  French  administrative  service,  including  appointments  to 
public  office  and  removals. 

MEURIOT,  M.  P.  Des  agglomerations  urbaines  dans  PEurope  contem- 
poraine.  Paris,  1898. 

A  statistical  study  of  the  causes  and  results  of  city  growth  in  European  coun- 
tries. 

MICHOUD,  M.  "  La  responsibility  des  communes,"  in  Revue  du  droit 
public,  1897. 

MIRIEL,  EMILE.  Des  rapports  des  municipalites  et  du  pouvoir  central  en 
matiere  de  police.  Paris,  1897. 

MORGAND,  LEON.     La  loi  municipale.    7th  ed.     2  vols.     Paris,  1907. 

Of  all  works  on  French  municipal  government,  this  is  the  most  useful  to  the 
general  student.  It  is  a  clause  by  clause  commentary  on  the  Municipal  Code  of 
1884,  avoiding  needless  detail,  but  covering  in  a  comprehensive  way  every  aspect 
of  municipal  organization. 

MOSNY,  M.     La  protection  de  la  sante  publique.    Paris,  1904. 
MOUNEYRAT,  E.     La  prefecture  de  police.     Paris,  1906. 

A  doctoral  thesis  presenting  a  serviceable,  though  not  exhaustive,  study  of  the 
office  of  police  prefect  in  Paris. 


SOURCES  AND  LITERATURE  387 

NANCY,  DURAND  DE.     Nouveau  guide  pratique  des  maires,  des  adjoints, 
des  secretaires  de  mairies,  et  des  conseillers  rmmicipaux.    Paris,  1905. 
A  handbook  of  municipal  duties. 

PARKER,  E.  M.     "  State  and  Official  Liability,"  in  Harvard  Law  Review, 
March,  1906. 

PELETANT,  M.     De  Porganisation  de  la  police.    Dijon,  1899. 

PENARD,  D.    Le  probleme  du  mode  d'e"lection  des  conseillers  municipaux 
de  Paris.     Paris,  1905. 

A  plea  for  radical  changes  in  the  system  of  electing  members  of  the  Paris 
municipal  council. 

PERRIER,  E.  G.     De  la  revocation  des  fonctionnaires.    Paris,  1903. 

PERRIN,  EDOUARD.     De  la  competence  re"glementaire  des  maires,  et  des 
voies  de  recours  centre  leurs  arretes.     Paris,  1904. 

PERRINJAQUET,  JEAN.    De  la  responsabilite  des  communes  en  matiere 
de  police.     Paris,  1905. 

An  excellent  discussion  of  the  subject  in  short  compass  and  from  a  lawyer's 
point  of  view. 

PILON,  EUSTACHE.    Monopoles  communaux.     Paris,  1899. 

A  general  summary  of  achievements  in  the  sphere  of  municipal  socialism. 

PINDRAY,  M.  DE.     De  1'abstentionisme    en  matiere  electorate  et  des 
moyens  propres  a  y  remedier.     Paris,  1902. 
A  plea  for  the  system  of  voting  by  proxy. 

PORCHE,  ALFRED.    La  question  des  grandes  et  des  petites  communes. 
Paris,  1900. 

A  doctoral  thesis  on  the  question  of  uniformity  in  local  administration. 
POUDRA,  A.,  and  PIERRE,  E.     Traite"  pratique  de  droit  parlementaire. 
8  vols.    Versailles,  1878-1880. 

The  standard  work  on  French  parliamentary  procedure.    These  parliamentary 
rules  are  usually  followed  by  local  councils. 
PREVOISIN,  ROBERT  DE.     Guide  pratique  d'electeur.    Paris,  1906. 

A  voter's  handbook  of  municipal  administration. 

RAGEL,  CHARLES.    Manuel  formulaire  des  actes  de  1'etat  civil  a  1'usage 
des  maires.     Paris,  1898. 

RAMALHO,   ALBERT.     "Des  changements  de  nom  des  communes,"  in 
Revue  generate  d" administration,  1896. 

REISSER,  E.,  et  RIDEL,  G.     Guide  electoral  pratique.    Paris,  1901. 

A  voter's  handbook  of  municipal  law. 

RENDU,  AMBROISE.     "  La  representation  proportioned  dans  les  conseils 
municipaux,"  in  Revue  municipale,  March  3,  1900. 


388  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

RENDU,  AMBROISE.     Rapport  sur  le  service  des  eaux.     Paris,  1905. 

RET,  A.     Theorie  du  budget  communal.     Paris,  1897. 

ROGER,  Louis.     Le  domaine  industriel  des  municipality.     Paris,  1901. 

SAINT-LAGER,  M.  J.     Elections  municipales.     6th  ed.     Ed.   C.  Vuille- 
mot.     Paris,  1904. 

A  full  presentation  of  the  law  and  practice  relating  to  municipal  elections. 

ST.  PREUIL,  L.  DE.    L'impuissance  des  partis  politiques  actuels  en  France. 
Paris,  1898. 

An  attempt  to  explain  the  decentralization  of  political  parties  in  France  and 
to  set  forth  some  of  the  direct  consequences  of  this  feature. 

SAUSSON,  A.    Des  monopoles  communaux.     Paris,  1902. 

SPIRE,  ANDRE.     Etude  historique  et  juridique  de  la  responsabilite  des 
communes  en  cas  d'attroupements.     Paris,  1895. 

STEHLIN,  L.    Essais  de  socialisme  municipal.     Paris,  1901. 

TAILLANDIER,  A.  DE.    Manuel  formulaire  de  la  revision  de  la  liste  elec- 
torale.    Paris,  1893. 

A  manual  of  forms  and  instructions  for  the  use  of  the  listing  authorities. 

TAUDIERE,  H.     "  Restrictions  apportees  aux  libertes  locales  depuis  un 
quart  de  siecle,"  in  La  reforme  sociale,  November,  1904. 

TCHERNOFF,  M.     Du  pouvoir  reglementaire  des  maires.     Paris,  1899. 

Thesis  for  the  doctorate  at  the  University  of  Paris. 
THORLET,  LEON.     Traite  des  travaux  communaux.     Paris,  1894. 

A  useful  small  treatise  on  the  relation  of  the  French  municipality  to  its  public 
services. 

THORLET,  LEON.     Traite  de  police  k  1'usage  des  maires.    Paris,  1891. 

TOUCHE,  P.  DE.     Quatre  ans  de  nationalisme  k  1'Hotel  de  Ville,  1900- 
1904.     Paris,  1904. 

UZE,   CHARLES.     De    la    nullite    en   matiere  d'elections    municipales. 
Paris,  1896. 

The  law  and  precedents  relating  to  the  annulment  of  municipal  elections. 

VEL-DURAND,  MAURICE.     De  la  responsabilite  des  communes  en  cas  de 
dommages  par  des  attroupements  ou  rassemblements.     Paris,  1902. 

VERDALLE,   ROMAIN.     Traite    pratique  des  emprunts  des  communes. 
Paris,  1881. 

VILLAIN,  G.    Paris  et  la  mairie  centrale ;  dtude  de  centralisation  admin- 
istrative.    Paris,  1884. 

Arguments  in  favor  of  Parisian  administrative  autonomy. 


SOURCES  AND  LITERATURE  389 

WEBER,  A.  F.  The  Growth  of  Cities  in  the  Nineteenth  Century.  New 
York,  1899. 

Much  the  best  work,  in  English,  on  the  phenomenon  of  urban  concentration,  its 
causes  and  its  results. 

PART  H 
PRUSSIAN  CITIES 

BIBLIOGRAPHY.  The  best  collection  of  boots  and  other  publications 
relating  to  German  city  government  is  that  contained  in  the  Magistratsbib- 
liothek  at  the  Rathaus  in  Berlin.  But  there  is,  unfortunately,  no  recent 
catalogue  of  this  collection.  Brooks's  Bibliography  (see  above,  p.  380)  in- 
cludes extensive  lists  of  publications  on  German  municipal  administration 
prior  to  1901 :  for  the  special  literature  since  this  date  one  must  trust  the 
general  bibliographical  aids,  of  which  the  most  convenient  for  this  purpose 
is  the  Uebersicht  der  gesammten  stoats-  und  rechtswissenschaftlichen  Litteratur 
(ed.  Otto  Miihlbrecht),  published  annually  in  Berlin.  One  may  keep  closely 
in  touch  with  new  publications  relating  to  German  municipal  administra- 
tion by  following  the  book  reviews  in  the  Centralblatt  fur  Rechtswissenschaft 
(ed.  von  Kirchenheim),  published  at  Stuttgart. 

OFFICIAL  AND  SEMI-OFFICIAL  PUBLICATIONS.  Imperial  laws  are  printed 
in  the  Reichs-Gesetz-Blatt,  and  in  the  Centralblatt  fur  das  deutsche  Reich. 
Sometimes  new  functions  are  intrusted  to  cities  by  these  enactments.  The 
Prussian  laws  relating  to  municipal  and  all  other  matters  are  published 
annually  in  the  Preussische  Gesetz-Sammlung :  there  is  no  compilation,  so 
far  as  I  am  aware,  which  makes  accessible  in  convenient  form  the  various 
laws  relating  to  city  administration  alone.  The  City  Government  Act  of 
1853  (Die  Stadteordnung  fur  die  sechs  ostlichen  Provinzen  der  preussischen 
Monarchic)  is  printed  separately,  however,  and  particular  attention  should 
be  called  to  the  two  excellent  commentaries  on  this  code  by  Ledermann 
and  Oertel  respectively  (see  below,  pp.  393,  394).  The  ministerial  instruc- 
tions relating  to  the  manner  in  which  local  authorities  should  perform  their 
functions,  as,  for  example,  the  Instruktion  fur  die  Stadt-Magistrate  vom  25. 
Mai  1835,  are  also  printed  separately  and  may  be  found  at  any  administra- 
tive library. 

In  the  matter  of  statistical  data  relating  to  the  cities  of  the  empire,  the 
Statistisches  Jahrbuch  deutscher  Stadte  (ed.  Neefe),  which  has  been  published 
at  Breslau  each  year  since  1890,  is  of  the  highest  service.  This  is  the  most 
comprehensive  and  the  most  accurate  compilation  of  its  kind  in  any  coun- 
try. For  data  relating  to  Berlin,  the  Stalistisches  Jahrbuch  der  Stadt  Berlin 
is  of  similarly  high  value.  It  is  issued  each  year  and  is  in  every  way  a 
model  publication. 

Each  large  German  city  issues  every  year  official  returns  of  various  sorts. 
Berlin,  for  example,  publishes  annually  the  Verwaltungsbericht  des  Magistrals 
zu  Berlin,  which  contains  full  accounts,  both  statistical  and  descriptive,  of 


390  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

the  work  of  every  municipal  department.  In  addition  the  city  publishes 
quinquennially  a  Bericht  iiber  die  Gemeinde-Verwaltung  der  Stadt  Berlin. 
The  latest  publication  under  this  title  covers  the  years  1900-1905  and  has 
appeared  in  three  volumes  during  1907-1908.  It  contains  almost  every- 
thing that  the  ordinary  student  would  be  apt  to  look  for  concerning  the 
actual  working  of  Berlin  administration.  Publications  of  a  more  special 
nature  are  the  Vorlagen  fur  die  Stadtverordneten-Versammlung  zu  Berlin  (pub- 
lished before  every  meeting  of  the  municipal  council)  ;  the  Amtlicher  steno- 
graphischer  Bericht  fur  die  Sitzung  der  Stadtverordneten-Versammlung  zu  Berlin 
(published  after  each  council  meeting)  ;  and  the  Gemeinde-Blatt,  or  municipal 
gazette,  which  contains  all  official  announcements.  Information  concerning 
the  personnel  of  Berlin  government  may  be  drawn  from  the  Personal-Nach- 
weisung  der  Berliner  Gemeinde-Verwaltung  (published  annually). 

JURISPRUDENCE.  The  chief  Prussian  administrative  court  renders  each 
year  a  considerable  number  of  decisions  relating  to  the  powers  and  responsi- 
bilities of  city  authorities,  and  these  may  be  found  in  the  annual  reports  of 
the  court's  decisions  entitled  Entscheidungen  des  Oberverwaltungsgerichts. 
The  gist  of  these  decisions  is,  however,  usually  to  be  found  in  the  standard 
commentaries  on  the  City  Government  Act. 

PERIODICALS.  Two  well-known  publications  devote  their  attention  ex- 
clusively to  city  government.  These  are  Die  deutsche  Gemeinde-Zeitung,  a 
weekly,  which  contains  announcements,  notes,  and  news  of  special  interest 
to  those  actually  engaged  in  local  administration ;  and  Die  Stadte-Zeitung,  a 
somewhat  more  pretentious  periodical  published  fortnightly,  and  containing 
occasionally  contributed  articles.  A  third  periodical,  not  so  well  known,  is 
Die  deutsche  Stadt,  published  fortnightly  at  Dresden.  Discussions  of  city 
problems  are  frequently  to  be  found,  furthermore,  in  the  more  general  pub- 
lications, such  as  the  A  nnalen  des  deutschen  Reiches,  the  Preussische  Jahrbucher, 
the  various  "Jahrbucher"  which  cover  the  whole  field  of  political  science, 
and  particularly  in  that  admirable  series  the  Schriften  des  Vereins  fur  Sozlal- 
politik. 

MISCELLANEOUS  BOOKS  (arranged  alphabetically). 

ANSCHUTZ,  G.  Die  Organisationsgesetze  der  innern  Verwaltung  in 
Preussen.  Berlin,  1897. 

A  monograph  on  the  laws  relating  to  the  Prussian  administrative  service. 
ARNSTEDT,  H.     Das  preussische  Polizeirecht.    Berlin,  1905. 

A  manual  of  police  jurisdiction. 
BELOW,  GEORG  VON.     Das  altere  deutsche  Stadtewesen.     Bielefeld,  1898. 

BERGHEIM,  M.    Der  Wohnsitz  in  biirgerlichen  Recht.    Rostock,  1907. 

A  study  of  the  principle  of  domicile  in  relation  to  voting  and  other  civil 
rights. 

BISHOP,  J.  T.  "  The  Bin-germeister,  Germany's  Chief  Municipal  Magis- 
trate," in  American  Political  Science  Review,  May,  1908. 


SOURCES  AND  LITERATURE  391 

BORNHAK,  CONRAD.      Preussisches    Staatsrecht.     3  vols.     Freiburg  in 
Baden,  1888-1890. 

An  exhaustive  work  on  Prussian  administration,  including  the  administration 
of  cities. 

BROOKS,  R.  C.     "Berlin's  Tax  Problem,"  in  Political  Science  Quarterly, 
Vol.  xx. 

BROOKS,  R.  C.     "  The  Three-Class  System  in  Prussian  Cities,"  in  Munici- 
pal Affairs,     Vol.  ii. 

The  best  discussion  of  the  topic  in  English. 

BROOKS,  R.  C.     "Berlin  without  an  Oberbiirgermeister,"  in  Annals  of  the 
American  Academy  of  Political  and  Social  Science,  July,  1899. 

DOVE,  HEINRICH.     "  Berlin,"  in  Schriften  des  Vereins  fur  Sozialpolitik, 
Vol.  117. 

The  best  short  survey  of  contemporary  Berlin  administration. 

DRYANDER,  G.     "  Der  §  16  der  preussischen  Stadteordnung  und  die  Haus- 
besitzer  unserer  Grosstadte,"  in  Annalen  des  deulschen  Reiches,  1903. 

A  criticism  of  the  legal  requirement  that,  in  Prussian  city  councils,  one-half 
the  members  shall  be  house-owners. 

EBERT,  L.     Der  Stadtverordnete  im  Geltungsbereiche  der  Stadteordnung 
vom  30  Mai  1853.    Berlin,  1883. 

EHERSTADT,  R.     "  System  und  Princip  in  der  Berliner  Stadtverwaltung," 
in  Preussische  Jahrbiicher.     Vol.  Ixx. 

EVERT,  GEORG.     Die  Dreiklassenwahl  in  den  preussischen  Stadt-  und 
Landgeineinden.     Berlin,  1901. 

A  small  handbook  devoted  to  explanations  of  the  changes  made  in  the  three- 
class  system  by  the  Law  of  1900. 

GNEIST,  RUDOLPH  VON.     Die  nationale  Rechtsidee  von  den  Standen  und 
das  preussische  Dreiklassensystem.     Berlin,  1894. 

GRAIS,  HUE  DE,  COUNT.     Handbuch  dev  Verfassung  und  Verwaltung  in 
Preussen,  etc.     17th  ed.     Berlin,  1906. 

A  very  useful  handbook  of  German  government  in  general,  covering  the  impe- 
rial, state,  and  municipal  administrations. 

GRASSMAN,  R.     Das  Wahlrecht  der  Stadteordnung.     Stettin,  1876. 

HABERLAND,  G.     Gross-Berlin,  ein  Beitrag  zur  Eingemeindungsfrage. 
Berlin,  1904. 

HATTON,  A.  R.     Digest  of  City  Charters.     Chicago,  1906. 

Devoted  mainly  to  American  cities,  but  contains  useful  summaries  relating  to 
organization,  procedure,  and  powers  of  city  governments  in  the  various  other 
countries  of  Europe. 

HEGEL,  KARL.     Die  Entstehung  des  deutschen  Stadtewesens.     Leipsic, 
1898. 


392  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

HEUSLER,  A.     Der  Ursprung  der  deutschen  Stadtverfassung.    Weimar, 
1872. 

Studies  in  the  origins  of  contemporary  municipal  institutions. 

HILL,  J.  A.     "  The  Prussian  Income  Tax,"  in  Quarterly  Journal  of  Eco- 
nomics, Vol.  vi. 

HIPPEL,  R.  VON.     Handbuch  der  Polizeiverwaltung.     Berlin,  1905. 
An  inclusive  and  well-written  work  on  police  administration. 

HULLMAN,   K.  D.     Das  Stadtwesen  des  Mittelalters.     4  vols.     Bonn, 
1826-1829. 

An  elaborate  and  trustworthy  work  on  the  organization  and  activities  of  Ger- 
man cities  during  the  mediaeval  period. 

JAMES,  E.  J.     "  The  Government  of  a  Typical  Prussian  City,"  in  A  nnals 
of  the  American  Academy  of  Political  and  Social  Science,  May,  1900. 

JASTROW,  I.     Das  Dreiklassensystem.     Berlin,  1894. 

A  description  of  the  workings  of  the  three-class  system  of  voting. 

JEBENS,  A.  W.     Die  Instruktion  filr  die  Stadt-Magistrate  vom  25.  Mai. 
1835  nach  neusten  Recht.     Berlin,  1901. 

JEBENS,  A.  W.     Die  Stadtverordneten.     Berlin,  1905. 

A  small  manual  designed  for  use  by  councillors  and  other  active  officers  of 
Prussian  city  government.     It  is  informing  and  well  put  together. 

KAPPLEMAN,  H.     "Die  Verfassung  und  Verwaltungsorganisation  der 
preussischen  Stadte,"  in  Schriften  des  Vereins  fiir  Sozialpolitik,  Vol.  117. 
Quite  the  best  short  survey  of  contemporary  Prussian  city  government. 

KAUTZ,  G.,  and  APPELIUS,  F.    Preussisches  Kommunalbeamtenrecht. 
Berlin,  1900. 

The  rights  and  responsibilities  of  municipal  officials. 

KLOSE,  W.     Die  Finanzpolitik  der  preussischen   Gross-Stadte.      Halle, 
1907. 

A  doctoral  dissertation. 

KOEHNE,  M.     Polizei  und  Publikum.     Berlin,  1897. 

KOSLIK,  P.     Das  Biirgerrecht  in  den  preussischen  Provinzen.     Berlin, 
1888. 

A  treatise  on  the  law  of  citizenship. 

KREMSKI,  F.   Preussische  Kommunalbeamtengesetzgebung.    Berlin,  1901. 
A  commentary  on  the  laws  relating  to  local  office-holding. 

KUNTZE,  J.   E.      Untersuchungen  iiber  den  Ursprung  des   deutschen 
Stadtewesens.     Leipsic,  1895. 


SOURCES  AND  LITERATURE  393 

KURSCHNER,  JOSEPH.     Das  Staats-,  Hof-  und  Kommunales  Handbuch. 
Berlin,  1907. 

An  annual  publication  containing  much  useful  data  of  a  personal  nature  con- 
cerning all  those  who  are  prominent  either  in  national,  state,  or  local  adminis- 
tration. 

LEDERMANN,  WALTER.     Die  Anstellung  und  Versorgung  der  Kommu- 
nalbeamten.     Berlin,  1899. 

A  treatise  on  the  installation,  tenure,  and  rights  of  municipal  officials. 

LEDERMANN,  WALTER.    Die  Stadteordnung  von  1853  nebst  ihren  gesetz- 
lichen  Erganzungen.     Berlin,  1902. 

An  inexpensive  but  exhaustive  and  trustworthy  commentary  on  the  City  Gov- 
ernment Act  of  1853,  with  the  subsequent  amendments  and  several  useful  appen- 
dices. For  the  ordinary  student  it  is  the  most  serviceable  handbook  of  its  kind. 

LEHMANN,  MAX.     Freiherr  von  Stein.     3  vols.     Berlin,  1902-1905. 

The  best  German  biography  of  Stein  so  far  as  his  administrative  work  is  con- 
cerned. 

LEIDIG,  EUGEN.    Preussisches  Stadtrecht.    Berlin,  1891. 

A  standard  monograph  on  the  subject,  still  frequently  referred  to,  but  now 
too  old  to  be  of  high  service. 

LINDEMANN,  H.      Arbeiterpolitik  und  Wirthschaftspflege  in  der  deut- 
schen  Stadteverwaltung.    Stuttgart,  1904. 

A  study  of  the  relation  of  the  city  to  public  utilities,  and  particularly  of  munici- 
pal policy  toward  labor. 

LINDEMANN,  H.     Die  deutsche  Stadteverwaltung.    Stuttgart,  1906. 

A  very  useful  and  up-to-date  survey  of  the  whole  field  of  Prussian  city  admin- 
istration. 

LOENING,  E.     "  Die  Verwaltung  der  Stadt  Berlin,"  in  Preussische  Jahr- 
bucher.     Vols.  Iv.-lvi.  passim. 

MAATZ,  R.    Das  preussische  Einkommensteuergesetz,  systematiscb.  dar- 
gestellt.     Berlin,  1902. 

McNEiLL,  W.  S.     Eine  Studie  iiber  die  Aufgaben  der  Stadtgemeinden 
in  der  Wohnungsfrage.     Berlin,  1902. 

MAURER,  G.  L.  VON.     Geschichte  der  Stadtverfassung  in  Deutschland. 
4  vols.     Erlangen,  1869-1871. 

An  authoritative  history  of  German  municipal  organization. 

MAYER,  D.  E.    Rapport  sur  les  institutions  municipales  de  Berlin.    Paris, 
1886. 

MEIER,  ERNST.     Die  Reform  der  Verwaltungsorganisation  unter  Stein 
uiid  Hardenberg.     Leipsic,  1881. 

NEZARD,  H.     L 'evolution  du  suffrage  universel  en  Prusse  et  dans  1'em- 
pire  allemand.    Paris,  1905. 

An  outsider's  view  of  the  Prussian  suffrage  problem. 


394  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

OERTEL,  O.     Die  Stadteordnung  vom  30.  Mai  1853  mit  Erganzungen  und 
Erlauterungen.    4th  ed.     Liegnitz,  1905. 

The  standard  commentary  on  the  City  Government  Act  of  1853  and  subsequent 
amendments  thereto,  by  a  writer  who  has  had  service  as  the  Oberbiirgermeister 
of  a  large  Prussian  city. 

POLLARD,  J.    A  Study  in  Municipal  Government :     The  Corporation  of 
Berlin.    2d  ed.     London,  1894. 

An  elementary  study,  of  service  mainly  because  there  is  little  else  in  English 
on  the  subject. 

PREUSS,  HUGO.    Das  stadtische  Amtsrecht  in  Preussen.     Berlin,  1902. 
Studies  in  the  jurisprudence  relating  to  municipal  office-holding  in  Prussia. 

PREUSS,  HUGO.    Das  Recht  der  stadtischen  Schulverwaltung  in  Preussen. 
Berlin,  1905. 

A  study  of  the  relation  of  the  city  to  its  schools. 

PREUSS,  HUGO.     Die  Entwickelung  des  deutschen  Stadtewesens.    Leip- 
sic,  1906. 

This  work  is  planned  to  occupy  two  volumes,  of  which  only  one  has  as  yet 
appeared.  This  volume  presents  a  lucid  and  readable  outline  of  German  munici- 
pal development  from  the  standpoint  of  an  advanced  Liberal. 

REIMANN,  A.   Der  preussische  Stadtverordnete,  seine  Rechte  und  Pflichten. 
Danzig,  1900. 

A  guide  to  the  rights  and  duties  of  municipal  councillors. 

ROWE,  L.  S.     Problems  of  City  Government.     New  York,  1908. 
Contains  a  chapter  on  municipal  ownership  of  street  railways  in  Germany. 

SCHON,  PAUL.     "  Die  Organisation  der  stadtischen  Verwaltung  in  Preus- 
sen," in  Annalen  des  deutschen  Reiches,  1891. 

An  essay  on  the  Prussian  municipal  system,  concise  and  comprehensive. 

SCHULZE,  BRUNO.     Editor.     Die  Stadteordnung  vom  30.  Mai  1853  zum 
praktischen  Gebrauch  ausfiihrlich  erlautert.     Berlin,  1901. 

A  convenient,  small  handbook  containing  a  commentary  on  the  City  Govern- 
ment Act  of  1853. 

SEELEY,  SIR  J.  R.     The  Life  and  Times  of  Stein.    2  vols.     Cambridge, 
1878. 

Contains  a  summary  of  the  municipal  reorganization  of  1808. 

SHAW,  ALBERT.     Municipal  Government  in  Continental  Europe.     New 
York,  1897. 

Chapters  V.  and  VI.  deal  in  a  popular  way  with  German  municipal  government 
and  administration. 

STEFFENHAGEN,  H.     Handbuch  der  stadtischen  Verfassung  und  Verwal- 
tung in  Preussen.     2  vols.     Berlin,  1887. 

An  exhaustive  and  systematic  discussion,  clearly  written. 


SOURCES  AND  LITERATURE  395 

STENGEL,  EARL.  Die  Organisation  der  preussischen  Verwaltung.  2  vols. 
Berlin,  1884. 

An  older  work  on  Prussian  administration,  still  frequently  referred  to  by 
writers. 

TAUSSIG,  F.  W.  "  Love  of  Wealth  and  the  Public  Service,"  in  Atlantic 
Monthly,  March,  1906. 

THROL,  F.     Das  polizeiliche  Meldewesen.     Berlin,  1897. 

Describes  in  detail  the  system  of  police  registration. 
WAITZ,  G.     Deutsche  Verfassungsgeschichte.    8  vols.     Kiel,  1844-1861. 

The  second  volume  contains  much  relating  to  the  development  of  German  city 
government  in  earlier  times. 

"  Wer  ist's  ?  "     Berlin,  1908. 

The  German  "  Who's  Who,"  published  yearly. 

ZELLE,  R.  Die  Stadteordnung  von  1853  in  ihrer  heutigen  Gestalt.  3d 
ed.  Berlin,  1893. 

A  useful  commentary  in  some  respects,  but  quite  inferior  to  those  of  Leder- 
maim  and  Oertel. 

PART  III 

ENGLISH  CITIES 

BIBLIOGRAPHY.  On  all  matters  pertaining  to  the  history  of  English 
cities  and  the  development  of  municipal  institutions,  Professor  Charles 
Gross's  Bibliography  of  British  Municipal  History  (New  York,  1897)  is 
invaluable.  In  addition  to  extensive  lists  of  books  on  general  and  munici- 
pal history  this  work  contains  useful  selected  bibliographies  on  such  topics 
as  municipal  reform,  the  government  of  the  City  of  London,  the  London 
County  Council,  and  so  forth.  Brooks's  Bibliography  of  Municipal  Prob- 
lems (see  above,  p.  380)  contains  a  great  deal  of  information  concerning 
materials  for  the  study  of  English  city  government,  and  on  this  topic  is  for 
all  practical  purposes  a  complete  record  down  to  the  date  of  its  issue  in 
1901.  The  unofficial  publications  since  this  date  have  not  been  listed  com- 
pletely in  any  single  place,  but  one  may  conveniently  follow  the  recent  book 
literature  in  G.  K.  Fortescue's  Subject  Index  of  the  Modern  Works  added  to 
the  Library  of  the  British  Museum  in  the  Years  1901-1905  (London,  1906) ; 
and  the  periodical  literature  in  Poole's  Index  to  Periodicals.  Less  comprehen- 
sive lists  which  may  serve  bibliographical  purposes  are  the  Catalogue  of  the 
Contents  of  the  Library  of  the  London  County  Council,  published  in  1902;  the 
Catalogue  of  Books  in  the  Library  of  the  Local  Government  Board,  printed  a 
year  later ;  and  Sidney  Webb's  Select  Bibliography  of  Municipal  Socialism 
(London,  1900). 

OFFICIAL  AND  SEMI-OFFICIAL  PUBLICATIONS.  All  the  laws  relating 
to  local  government  may  be  found,  of  course,  in  the  Statutes  of  the  Realm ; 


396  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

but  the  more  important  of  them  are  printed  separately  and  may  be  had 
from  His  Majesty's  Stationery  Office.  Rawlinson's  Municipal  Corporations 
Acts  (9th  ed.,  London,  1903)  contains  all  the  more  important  enactments. 
Much  material  of  the  most  useful  character  has  been  brought  together  in 
the  reports  of  the  various  Royal  Commissions  and  Select  Committees  which 
have  from  time  to  time  inquired  into  some  phase  of  municipal  administra- 
tion. Reports  of  character  are  listed  in  the  Catalogue  of  Parliamentary 
Papers  published  during  the  XIX  Century  (London,  1901).  Since  1900  there 
have  been  some  important  inquiries,  notably  that  of  the  Select  Committees 
on  Municipal  Trading  (1903),  and  these  are  enumerated  in  the  Numerical 
List  and  Index  to  the  Parliamentary  Papers,  printed  after  each  session.  Of 
the  earlier  reports,  two  should  be  singled  out  as  being  invaluable  to  every 
student  of  English  municipal  affairs,  namely,  the  Report  of  the  Royal  Com- 
mission on  Municipal  Corporations  (1835),  and  the  Report  of  the  Royal  Com- 
mission on  the  Amalgamation  of  London  (1894).  The  last-named  report,  with 
its  voluminous  minutes  of  evidence,  forms  a  veritable  storehouse  of  data 
relating  to  every  branch  of  actual  borough  administration. 

Other  official  publications  to  which  direct  reference  should  be  made  when 
occasion  requires  are  the  annual  Report  of  the  Local  Government  Board  and 
the  blue  books  which  each  year  contain  the  Returns  of  the  Board  of  Trade. 
The  latter  body  issues  each  year  its  Annual  Returns  of  Tramway  and  Gas 
Undertakings  as  well  as  various  other  statements.  All  publications  of  this 
sort  may  be  had  at  a  nominal  price  on  application  to  the  King's  Printers 
(Messrs.  Eyre  and  Spottiswoode). 

For  statistical  information  a  very  handy  volume  (which  though  not  official 
is  compiled  from  the  official  returns)  is  Robert  Donald's  Municipal  Year 
Book  of  the  United  Kingdom,  issued  annually  in  the  early  months  of  the 
year.  This  compilation  contains  statistical  and  other  matter  relating  to 
every  borough  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  all  conveniently  arranged  for 
use  even  by  the  untrained.  It  is  to  this  volume  that  one  should  first  turn 
for  information  concerning  the  administrative  activities  of  any  English  city. 
A.  E.  Lander's  Municipal  Manual  is  a  useful  yearly  handbook  of  municipal 
powers ;  and  for  any  information  relative  to  the  personnel  of  English  local 
government,  reference  may  be  made  to  the  Local  Government  Manual,  which 
has  made  its  appearance  each  year  with  unfailing  regularity  for  over  half  a 
century. 

Official  publications  relating  to  London  there  are  in  plenty.  The  Minutes 
of  the  Proceedings  of  the  London  County  Council  are  printed  weekly,  and 
although  intended  primarily  for  members,  may  be  had  by  any  outsider  who 
cares  to  pay  the  subscription  of  thirty  shillings  per  year.  Each  year  the 
Council  issues  its  Annual  Report,  a  feature  of  this  publication  being  a 
review  of  the  Council's  work  for  the  year  written  by  its  chairman.  The 
Handbook  of  the  Work  of  the  London  County  Council,  a  one-shilling  publica- 
tion issued  each  year  since  1900,  gives  the  same  data  in  more  condensed 
form.  The  Council  has  also  published  many  interesting  documents  em- 


SOURCES  AND  LITERATURE  397 

bodying  the  results  of  inquiries  made  by  its  committees  on  different  occa- 
sions and  the  reports  of  its  various  chief  officials.  A  full  list  of  these  may 
be  found  in  the  catalogue  of  Messrs.  P.  S.  King  &  Son,  publishers  to  the 
London  County  Council. 

London  Statistics  is  the  title  of  the  publication  to  which  reference  should 
be  made  for  accurate  figures  relating  to  any  department  of  metro- 
politan administration.  Volume  XVII.,  recently  issued,  gives  the  figures 
for  the  fiscal  year  1907-1908.  Those  who  are  loth  to  enter  this  wilder- 
ness of  statistics  may  be  referred  to  the  Statistical  Abstract  for  London,  an 
annual  digest  of  the  larger  compilation.  The  London  Manual,  an  unofficial 
handbook  based  upon  official  returns,  is  printed  yearly,  and  includes  within 
its  covers  about  all  the  information  the  general  student  of  local  government 
is  apt  to  seek. 

PERIODICALS.  The  Municipal  Journal,  published  weekly  in  London,  is 
the  only  important  periodical  publication  devoting  its  pages  exclusively  to 
the  affairs  of  British  municipalities.  There  are,  however,  several  technical 
journals  like  The  Tramway  and  Raihcay  World,  The  Electric  Engineer,  the 
Journal  of  Gas  Lighting,  and  The  Surveyor,  which  deal  in  almost  every  issue 
with  matters  of  municipal  trading.  Mention  may  also  be  made  of  the  year- 
books or  municipal  diaries  which  most  of  the  large  cities  issue  annually  or 
oftener,  and  which  doubtless  serve  a  useful  purpose  in  making  the  citizens 
familiar  with  the  personnel  and  powers  of  their  local  authorities.  The 
Fabian  Tracts  issued  from  time  to  time  by  the  Fabian  Society  are  usually 
both  interesting  and  informing. 

MISCELLANEOUS  BOOKS  (arranged  alphabetically). 

ARMINJON,  PIERRE.   L'administration  locale  en  Angleterre.    Paris,  1895. 

Contains  some  interesting  comparison  of  English  with  French  methods  in  local 
government  and  central  supervision. 

ASCHROTT,  P.  F.     The  English  Poor  Law  System.     London,  1902. 

The  relation  of  the  local  authorities  to  the  problem  of  public  charity. 
ASHLEY,  PERCY.     English  Local  Government.     London,  1905. 

A  small  one-shilling  manual  which  in  less  than  two  hundred  pages  gives  an 
admirable  resume  of  the  whole  field. 

AUSTIN,  E.     The  Light  Railways  Act  of  1896.    2d  ed.    London,  1899. 

A  manual  of  the  law  relating  to  street  railways. 

AVEBURY,  LORD  (Sir  John  Lubbock).  Municipal  and  National  Trad- 
ing. London,  1907. 

In  opposition  to  the  policy  of  municipal  ownership  and  operation. 
BALFOUR,  GRAHAM.     The  Educational   Systems  of  Great  Britain  and 
Ireland.     2d  ed.     London,  1904. 

The  best  short  treatise  on  English  school  administration  and  the  powers  of  the 
Education  Committee  of  the  municipal  council. 


398  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

BEARD,  C.  A.     The  Office  of  Justice  of  the  Peace  in  England.   New  York, 
1904. 

BRICE,  S.  W.     The  Law  relating  to   Tramways   and   Light  Railways. 
London,  1898. 

The  best  commentary  on  the  legal  powers  of  the  city  with  reference  to  street 
railways. 

CANAAN,  E.     History  of  Local  Rates  in  England.     London,  1896. 

CASSON,  W.   A.     Decisions  of  the  Local   Government  Board.     Issued 
annually. 

CHANCE,  W.    Our  Treatment  of  the  Poor.     London,  1899. 
A  readable  discussion  of  the  English  poor-relief  system. 

CLIFFORD,  F.     History  of   Private   Bill  Legislation.    2  vols.     London, 
1885-1887. 

The  chief  authority  on  the  subject. 

COLBY,  C.  W.     "  The  Growth  of  Oligarchy  in  English  Towns,"  in  Eng- 
lish Historical  Review,  Vol.  v. 

DARWIN,  LEONARD.     Municipal  Trade.     New  York,  1903. 

The  best  presentation  of  the  case  against  municipal  operation  of  public  services. 
DARWIN,  LEONARD.    Municipal  Ownership.     London,  1907. 

A  restatement  in  condensed  form  of  the  main  arguments  set  forth  in  the  same 
author's  larger  work. 

DA  VIES,  D.  H.     The  Cost  of  Municipal  Trading.     Westminster,  1903. 
A  pamphlet. 

DAY,  S.  H.    Editor.     Rogers  on  Elections.     3  vols.     London,  1894. 

Vol.  iii.  is  devoted  entirely  to  municipal  elections,  covering  this  subject  in  the 
most  thorough  fashion. 

DEWSNUP,  E.  R.     The  Housing  Problem  in  England.     Manchester,  1907. 
DICEY,  A.  V.     Law  and  Public  Opinion  in  England.     London,  1905. 
DICEY,  A.  V.     The  Privy  Council.     London,  1887. 

DILLON,  J.  F.     The  Law  of  Municipal  Corporations.    2  vols.    Boston, 
1890. 

The  most  elaborate  work  of  its  kind,  it  still  remains  in  many  respects  the  best. 
A  new  edition  is  now  in  preparation. 

DOLMAN,  F.    Municipalities  at  Work.     London,  1895. 

A  summary  of  English  municipal  activities.    Now  somewhat  out  of  date. 

EATON,  DORM  AN  B.     The  Civil  Service  in  Great  Britain.     New  York, 
1880. 


SOURCES  AND  LITERATURE  399 

Encyclopaedia  of  Local  Government  Law.    Ed.  J.  Scholefield.    6  vols. 
London,  1905-1908. 

Contains  a  great  many  informing  but  concisely-written  articles  on  matters 
of  borough  administration. 

FAIRLIE,  J.  A.     Essays  in  Municipal  Administration.    New  York,  1908. 

Chapter  xv.  deals  with  municipal  activities  in  Great  Britain. 
FOWLE,  T.  W.     The  Poor  Law.    2d  ed.     London,  1893. 

FOWLER,  H.  H.     Municipal  Finance  and  Municipal  Enterprise.    London, 
1900. 

A  pamphlet. 

Fox,  G.  L.     "  The  London  County  Council,"  in  Yale  Review,  1895. 
GLEN,  W.  C.     The  Laws  of  Public  Health.     12th  ed.     London,  1899. 
GLEN,  W.  C.     Poor  Law  Orders,     llth  ed.    London,  1898. 

A  compilation  of  the  orders  issued  by  the  Local  Government  Board  as  central 
poor-law  authority. 

GOMME,  G.  L.     Lectures  on  the  Principles  of  Local  Government.    Lon- 
don, 1897. 

GOMME,  G.  L.     The  Governance  of  London.     London,  1907. 

An  elaborate  treatise  on  the  earlier  municipal  history  of  London  by  a  scholarly 
historian,  now  clerk  of  the  London  County  Council. 

GREEN,  MRS.  J.  R.     Town  Life  in  the  Fifteenth  Century.    2  vols.    Lon- 
don, 1895. 

HADDEN,  R.  H.     Handbook  to  the  Local  Government  Act  of  1894.    Lon- 
don, 1895. 

HIRST,  F.  W.     "  Municipalities  in  England,"  in   Schriften  des    Vereins 
fur  Sozialpolitik,  Vol.  123,  Part  vii. 

HOPKINS,  A.  BASSETT.    The  Boroughs  of  the  Metropolis.    London,  1900. 

HOWE,  FREDERICK.     The  British  City.    New  York,  1907. 

A  highly  eulogistic  description  of  British  municipal  administration,  and  espe- 
cially of  British  achievements  in  the  domain  of  public  ownership  and  operation. 

HUGO,   C.     Stadteverwaltung   und   Munizipal-Sozialismus  in  England. 
Stuttgart,  1897. 

English  experience  in  municipal  trading  from  a  German  standpoint. 
HUNT,  J.     London  Local  Government.    2  vols.    London,  1897. 

Discusses  the  powers  and  duties  of  parish  authorities  prior  to  the  reorganiza- 
tion of  1899.  Is  still  valuable  as  an  exposition  of  parish  administration  within 
the  limits  of  the  old  city. 

HUNT,  J.     The  London  Government  Act.     London,  1899. 

A  commentary  on  the  law  which  created  the  London  boroughs.  Contains  use- 
ful notes. 


400  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

HUNT,  J.     The  Metropolitan  Borough  Council  Elections.     London,  1900. 

JENKS,  E.     The  Outlines  of  English  Local  Government.     London,  1894. 

A  useful  little  book  in  its  time,  but  now  somewhat  out  of  date. 
KEEN,  F.  N.     Urban  Police  and  Sanitary  Legislation.     London,  1904. 

KONSTAM,  E.  M.     Rates  and  Taxes.     London,  1906. 
The  law  and  practice  of  local  taxation. 

LEE,  MELVILLE.  A  Short  History  of  Police  in  England.  2d  ed.  London, 
1905. 

Contains  useful  information  concerning  earlier  police  organization  and  the 
conditions  which  led  to  the  passing  of  the  Metropolitan  Police  Act  of  1829. 

LLOYD,  J.  S.    Municipal  Elections  and  How  to  fight  Them.    London,  1906. 

A  popular  manual  for  the  use  of  local  politicians,  containing  much  shrewd 
advice  to  candidates  and  their  agents. 

LONSDALE,  S.     The  English  Poor  Laws.     London,  1897. 

LOWELL,  A.  L.     The  Government  of  England.    2vols.     New  York,  1908. 

An  authoritative  work  on  the  structure  and  functions  of  English  government 
in  general,  containing  several  masterly  chapters  on  local  administration. 

MACASSEY,  L.     Private  Bills  and  Provisional  Orders.    London,  1887. 

MAITLAND,  F.  W.    Justice  and  Police.     London,  1885. 
Some  matter  relating  to  the  local  administration  of  justice. 
MAITLAND,  F.  W.     Township  and  Borough.    London,  1898. 

MALTBIE,  M.  R.  "  The  Local  Government  Board,"  in  Political  Science 
Quarterly,  June,  1898. 

MALTBIE,  M.  R.     English  Local  Government  of  To-day.     London,  1897. 

MEREWETHER,  H.  A.,  and  STEPHENS,  A.  J.  History  of  the  Boroughs  and 
Municipal  Corporations  of  the  United  Kingdom.  3  vols.  London,  1835. 

The  most  elaborate  of  all  the  older  treatises  on  English  municipal  history,  and 
commonly  regarded  as  the  best  among  them.  It  was  written  to  influence  public 
opinion  in  favor  of  municipal  reform. 

MEYER,  H.  R.     Municipal  Ownership  in  Great  Britain.     New  York,  1906. 
An  able  but  obviously  biassed  discussion  of  the  subject. 

NATIONAL  Civic  FEDERATION:  Commission  on  Public  Ownership  and 
Operation.  Report  on  Municipal  and  Private  Operation  of  Public  Utilities. 
3  vols.  New  York  and  London,  1907. 

Contains  a  great  deal  of  statistical  and  descriptive  data  relating  to  English 
municipal  administration,  all  carefully  arranged  and  indexed. 

ODGERS,  W.  B.    Local  Government.    London,  1899. 

A  convenient  small  volume  giving  a  general  survey  of  the  whole  field  of  Eng- 
lish local  government. 


SOURCES  AND  LITERATURE  401 

OSTROGORSKI,  M.     Democracy  and  the  Organization  of  Political  Parties. 
2  vols.     London,  1902. 

The  standard  work  on  political  parties  in  England  and  elsewhere. 

PORTER,  R.  P.     The  Dangers  of  Municipal  Ownership.     New  York,  1907. 
Mainly  a  criticism  of  the  financial  results  of  municipal  trade. 

PROBYN,  J.  W.    Editor.     Local  Government  and  Taxation.     Cobden 
Club  Essays.     London,  1875. 

A  collection  of  essays  on  different  subjects  connected  with  local  administration 
in  England  and  abroad.  Now  somewhat  obsolete,  but  useful  on  matters  of  his- 
torical development. 

RAWLINSON,  SIR  C.     Municipal  Corporations  Acts,  and  Other  Enact- 
ments.    9th  ed.     London,  1903. 

A  useful  compendium  of  the  laws  relating  to  city  government  in  England. 

REDLICH,  J.,  and  HIRST,  F.  W.     Local  Government  in  England.    2  vols. 
London,  1903. 

Much  the  best  work  on  the  general  field  of  English  local  government.  Vol.  ii. 
contains  several  valuable  chapters  relating  to  different  phases  of  borough 
administration. 

RICARDS,  A.  G.,  and  PEMBER,  F.  W.     The  Metropolis  Water  Act  of  1902. 
London,  1903. 

Explains  fully  the  organization  and  powers  of  the  Metropolitan  Water  Board. 

RYDE,  W.  C.     The  Law  and  Practice  of  Rating.     London,  1904. 

Explains  in  detail  the  methods  by  which  boroughs  raise  the  larger  part  of  their 
annual  revenues. 

SEAGER,  J.  REKWICK.     The  Government  of  London  under  the  London 
Government  Act.     London,  1902. 

A  very  useful  volume  on  the  organization  and  powers  of  the  metropolitan 
boroughs. 

SHADWELL,  ARTHUR.     The  London  Water  Supply.     London,  1899. 

An  analysis  of  conditions  prior  to  the  passing  of  the  Metropolis  Water  Act. 
SHAW,  ALBERT.     Municipal  Government  in  Great  Britain.     New  York, 

1898. 

A  very  sympathetic  study  of  the  subject  by  a  distinguished  American  journal- 
ist. It  is  an  unusually  readable  book. 

SHAW,  GEORGE  BERNARD.     The  Common  Sense  of  Municipal  Trading. 
London,  1904. 

A  cleverly-executed  argument  in  support  of  municipal  socialism. 

SIMON,  J.     English  Sanitary  Institutions.     London,  1897. 
SINZHEIMER,  LUDWIG.     Der  Londoner  Grafschaftsrat.     Stuttgart,  1900. 
Originally  planned  to  present,  in  two  volumes,  a  narrative  of  the  achievements 
of  the  London  County  Council.    The  first  volume  (which  alone  has  yet  appeared) 
deals  in  detail  with  the  activities  of  the  Metropolitan  Board  of  Works,  whose 
functions  the  Council  took  over  in  1888. 
2o 


402  GOVERNMENT  OF  EUROPEAN  CITIES 

SMITH,  J.  TOULMIN.     The  Metropolis  and  its  Municipal  Administration. 
London,  1852. 

A  study  of  the  administration  of  unreformed  London. 

SMITH,  W.  R.     Municipal  Trading  in  Great  Britain.     Toronto,  1904. 
SYKES,  J.  F.    Public  Health  and  Housing.     London,  1901. 

THOMPSON,  W.     The  Powers  of  Local  Authorities.     Fabian  Tract  No. 
101.    London,  1900. 

Makes  clear  a  complicated  subject. 

VAUTHIER,  MAURICE.    Le  gouvernement  local  d'Angleterre.     Brussels, 
1895. 

VINE,  J.  R.  SOMERS.     English  Municipal  Institutions.     London,  1879. 

An  older  work  which  will  still  be  found  useful  on  matters  relating  to  the  de- 
velopment of  institutions. 

WALPOLE,  SIR  SPENCER.     Life  of  Lord  John  Russell.    2  vols.     London, 
1889. 

Contains  interesting  matter  relating  to  the  passage  of  the  Municipal  Corpora- 
tions Act  of  1835. 

WEBB,  SIDNEY.     London  Education.     London,  1904. 

Discusses  the  new  regime  in  London  Education  following  the  Act  of  1902. 
WEBB,  SIDNEY.     The  London  Programme.     London,  1891. 
WEBB,  SIDNEY.     Socialism  in  England.     London,  1893. 

WEBB,  SIDNEY  and  BEATRICE.     English  Local  Government  from  the 
Revolution  to  the  Municipal  Corporations  Act.    3  vols.    London,  1904-1908. 
The  most  exhaustive  modern  work.    To  the  student  of  borough  government 
vol.  iii.  is  of  the  highest  service. 

WHALE,  GEORGE.     Greater  London  and  its  Government.     London,  1888. 
WHELEN,  F,     London  Government.    London,  1898. 
WHEELER,  F.  G.     Th6  Practice  of  Private  Bills.     London,  1900. 
WHITMORE,  C.  A.    Municipal  London.     London,  1900. 

WRIGHT,  R.  S.,  and  HOBHOUSE,  H.     Local  Government  and  Local  Taxa- 
tion.   2d  ed.     London,  1894. 

Of  special  service  to  the  student  of  the  financial  powers  of  the  boroughs. 


INDEX 


ACT,  Municipal  Corporations  (1835), 
221 ;  Local  Government  (1894),  223; 
Municipal  Corporations  Consolida- 
tion (1882),  228;  Municipal  Elec- 
tions (1884),  249;  Public  Health 
(1875),  262;  Light  Railways  (1896), 
262;  Education  (1902),  280;  Tram- 
ways (1870),  331;  Housing  of  the 
Working  Classes  (1890),  352;  Me- 
tropolis Water  (1902),  353 ;  London 
Education,  370;  London  Govern- 
ment (1899),  374;  Metropolitan 
Police  (1829),  377;  Metropolitan 
Poor  (1867),  378. 

Actes  de  naissance.     See  Etat  civil. 

Adickes,  Dr.,  Oberbiirgermeister  of 
Frankfort-am-Main,  190 ;  influence 
of,  192. 

Adjoints,  in  French  cities,  how  chosen, 
62-63;  serve  without  stipend,  65; 
assist  mayor  in  preparation  of 
municipal  budget,  71 ;  other  duties 
of,  85;  character  of,  85. 

Administrative  Board.     See  Magistrat. 

Aldermen,  before  1835,  212;  special 
functions  of,  241;  how  chosen,  256; 
influence  of  politics  in  the  selection 
of,  257-258 ;  influence  of,  in  council, 
258-259;  service  of,  on  committees, 
284-285;  in  London,  342-343,  346. 

Alsace-Lorraine,  administration  of  cit- 
ies in,  117. 

Appointments.     See  Officials. 

Army,  duties  of  mayor  relating  to,  80- 
82. 

Arrondissements,  established  by  Napo- 
leon L,  6 ;  division  of  Paris  into,  99. 

Audit,  of  municipal  accounts,  in  France, 
70;  in  Prussia,  174,  194;  in  Eng- 
land, 304-306. 

Auditors,  in  English  boroughs,  how 
chosen,  304;  district,  their  duties, 
327. 

Augagneur,  M.,  former  mayor  of  Lyons, 
67. 

Avebury,  Lord  (Sir  John  Lubbock), 
chairman  of  London  County  Coun- 
cil, 350. 


BALLOT,  form  of,  in  France,  30-32;  its 
defects,  31-32;  use  of,  at  council 
meetings  in  France,  49;  by  Prus- 
sian Magistrat,  182;  form  of,  used 
in  England,  239-242.  See  also 
Elections. 

Barrot,  Odillon,  prefect  of  the  Seine,  95. 

Baurat,  office  of,  in  German  cities,  165- 
166. 

Becker,  Herr,  Oberbiirgermeister  of 
Cologne,  189. 

Bender,  Dr.,  Biirgenneister  of  Breslau, 
190. 

Berlin,  special  position  of,  124;  num- 
ber of  councillors  in,  127;  number 
of  members  in  Magistrat  of,  163; 
street  railway  tangles  in,  176;  re- 
fusal of  king  to  confirm  appoint- 
ments in,  188;  organization  of 
municipal  departments  in,  198,  203; 
use  of  citizen  deputies  in  adminis- 
tration of,  207-208. 

Beutler,  Herr,  Oberburgermeister  of 
Dresden,  189. 

Birkenhead,  borough  of,  revenues  from 
public  services  in,  272. 

Birmingham,  non-resident  voters  in, 
237;  non-resident  councillors  in, 
248 ;  administration  of  Mayor  Cham- 
berlain in,  256 ;  number  of  aldermen 
and  councillors  in,  256;  minority 
representation  in  council  of,  258; 
number  of  committees  in,  282. 

Bismarck,  approves  manhood  suffrage, 
134;  opinion  of,  concerning  the 
"three-class  system,"  135. 

Board,  Local  Government.  See  Local 
Government  Board. 

Board,  Metropolis  Water,  353. 

Board  of  Agriculture,  issues  provisional 
orders,  268;  origin  of,  315;  powers 
of,  337. 

Board  of  Education,  powers  of,  268; 
early  history  of,  315;  duties  of, 
337-338. 

Board  of  Trade,  relation  of,  to  private 
bills,  266;  jurisdiction  of,  277;  ac- 
quisition of  new  functions  by,  316; 


403 


404 


INDEX 


organization  and  powers  of,  330- 
333. 

Board  of  Works,  Metropolitan,  organi- 
zation and  achievements  of,  344— 
345. 

Boards  of  Guardians,  in  England,  279; 
in  London,  378. 

Boundaries,  powers  of  French  municipal 
councils  to  change,  51 ;  municipal, 
in  Prussia,  how  altered,  118-119; 
of  election  districts  in  Prussian 
cities,  135-136 ;  of  English  boroughs, 
how  fixed,  227-228;  how  changed, 
267;  jurisdiction  of  Local  Govern- 
ment Board  with  reference  to,  319. 

Bristol,  population  of,  210. 

Budget,  municipal,  in  France,  56-58, 
71;  in  Prussia,  161;  in  England, 
274-276. 

Bureaucracy.  See  Employees,  Offi- 
cials. 

Biirgerdeputirter.  See  Citizen  Depu- 
ties. 

Bin-germeister,  disciplinary  powers  of, 
179;  presides  at  meetings  of  Mag- 
istrat,  183;  compared  with  Ameri- 
can and  English  mayors,  183-184; 
history  of  office  of,  184-185;  how 
appointed,  185-187;  term  of,  189; 
salary  of,  190-191 ;  powers  of,  191- 
197.  See  also  Adickes,  Becker, 
Bender,  Beutler,  Haken,  Kirschner, 
Stande,  Tramm,  Trondlin. 

Busse,  Otto,  Magistrats-Sekretar,  state- 
ments of,  concerning  enrolment  of 
voters  in  Berlin,  131. 

CANTONS,    government    of,    in   France, 

under  decree  of  1795,  4. 
Chairman,  of  Prussian  city  council,  154; 

of    Prussian    municipal    deputation, 

199;    of  English  council  committee, 

285-286;    of  London  County  Coun- 
cil, 346,  350,  358. 
Chamberlain,   Rt.   Hon.  Joseph,  mayor 

of  Birmingham,  256. 
Chamber  of  Deputies,  responsibility  of 

minister  of  the  interior  to,  84. 
Charlottenburg,    number  of  councillors 

in,  127. 
Charters,    of   boroughs,    how   obtained, 

225-226. 
Chief  constable,  position  and  powers  of, 

in  English  boroughs,  303-304. 
Circle,  government  of,  in  Prussia,  123- 

124. 
Citizen    Deputies,     serve    on    Prussian 

deputations,   199-200;    how  chosen, 

200;    duties  of,  206-207. 


Citizens'  Unions,  in  English  cities,  245. 

Civil  Service,  absence  of  general  sys- 
tem of,  in  French  cities,  68;  exam- 
ples of,  in  France,  89;  in  Depart- 
ment of  the  Seine,  98-99 ;  in  Prussia, 
178-179;  in  English  cities,  294.  See 
also  Officials,  Employees. 

Clergymen,  disqualified  from  election 
to  council  in  English  boroughs,  236. 

Clerk,  Town,  office  of,  in  English  bor- 
oughs, 297-301 ;  prepares  financial 
statements,  328;  of  London  County 
Council,  346,  364. 

Clubs,  political,  in  France,  39-41.  See 
also  Parties. 

Code,  municipal,  in  France,  12;  in 
Prussia,  116;  in  England,  220-222. 

Cologne,  salary  of  Biirgermeister  in,  190. 

Comit^s  61ectoraux,  in  French  cities, 
39-41.  See  also  Parties. 

Committees,  of  council,  in  France,  62; 
in  Paris,  106-107;  in  Prussia,  158- 
159;  in  England,  282-288;  im- 
portance of,  292-293;  in  London, 
358-361.  See  also  Deputations. 

Common  Law,  as  a  source  of  borough 
powers,  261. 

Communes,  in  France,  origin  of,  2-3; 
number  of,  13;  rights  of,  at  law, 
15—16;  division  of,  into  wards, 
17-18;  syndicates  of,  90-91. 

Comptroller,  office  of,  in  London,  364. 

Council,  municipal,  in  France,  size  of, 
16;  composition  of,  17;  influence 
of  Socialists  in,  42-43;  procedure 
in,  44-46;  may  be  suspended  or 
dissolved  by  higher  authorities,  47— 
48;  publication  of  records  of,  49; 
powers  and  influence  of,  50-62; 
grants  of  franchises  by,  54—56; 
relation  of,  to  mayor,  60-61 ;  com- 
mittees of,  62-63;  of  Paris,  102- 
108;  in  Prussia,  size  of,  127;  char- 
acter of  men  elected  to,  150-154; 
meetings  of,  156-157;  committees 
of,  158-159;  general  powers  of,  159- 
162;  jurisdiction  of,  in  regard  to 
grants  of  franchises,  175;  appointing 
power  of,  177;  its  efficiency,  197; 
in  England,  before  the  reform  of 
1835,  212;  how  organized,  235; 
non-resident  members  of,  248;  does 
not  decide  contested  elections,  251 ; 
selects  mayor,  253-254;  mayor 
presides  at  meetings  of,  255 ;  selects 
aldermen,  256-257;  meetings  of, 
259;  general  powers  of,  260-268; 
ordinance  power  of,  271 ;  controls 
borough  expenditure,  274-275;  au- 


INDEX 


405 


thorizes  loans,  276;  relation  of 
committees  to,  286-288;  of  Lon- 
don, 345;  in  Metropolitan  bor- 
oughs, 374-375. 

Councillors,  municipal,  in  France,  quali- 
fications of,  23-24;  in  Paris,  how 
elected,  103-104;  in  Prussia,  how 
elected,  128;  apportioned  among 
districts,  135-136;  character  of, 
150-154 ;  serve  on  deputations,  199 ; 
in  England,  preside  at  polls,  240; 
sometimes  non-residents,  248;  take 
oaths  of  qualification,  252-253; 
serve  on  administrative  committees, 
284-285 ;  increase  in  duties  of,  290- 
291;  in  London,  345-346;  caliber 
of,  351 ;  in  Metropolitan  boroughs, 
374. 

Council  of  Department  of  the  Seine,  108. 

Council  of  State,  jurisdiction  of,  in 
approving  divisions  of  communes, 
18;  in  contested  elections,  36;  in 
disputes  concerning  the  powers  of 
municipal  councils,  51 ;  in  disputes 
concerning  selections  of  mayors  and 
adjoints,  65;  in  reinstatement  of 
officials,  69—70;  in  appeals  from 
decisions  of  prefects,  77;  in  appeals 
against  suspension  or  dismissal  of 
mayors,  84. 

Council  of  the  Prefecture,  jurisdiction 
of,  in  contested  elections,  36;  over 
municipal  accounts,  70. 

Court,  of  Accounts,  in  France,  70,  88; 
of  Aldermen,  in  London,  342;  of 
Cassation,  in  France,  powers  of,  in 
relation  to  municipal  voters'  lists, 
21;  of  Common  Council,  in  Lon- 
don, 343;  of  Common  Hall,  in  Lon- 
don, 343;  of  Kings'  Bench,  in  con- 
tested municipal  elections,  251 ;  of 
Passage,  in  Liverpool,  312. 

DEPUTATIONS,  municipal,  in  Prussia, 
159;  how  organized,  188-200;  chair- 
manships of,  202;  work  of,  203-204; 
in  administration  of  Berlin,  206-208. 
See  also  Committees. 

De  Selves,  J.  G.  C.,  prefect  of  the  Seine, 
94. 

Directory,  changes  made  in  municipal 
government  by  the  French,  4. 

District,  government  of  the,  in  Prussia, 
123. 

Dresden,  number  of  councillors  in,  127; 
term  of  Biirgermeister  in,  189;  sal- 
ary of  officials  in,  190. 

Duval,  Ferdinand,  former  prefect  of 
the  Seine,  95. 


Dwellings,  workingmen's.  See  Tene- 
ments. 

EDUCATION,  local,  in  France,  relation  of 
council  to,  52;  relation  of  mayor  to, 
82;  in  Prussia,  relation  of  Magistrat 
to,  172-173;  central  control  of,  201; 
in  England,  relation  of  council  to, 
280 ;  administration  of,  in  boroughs, 
289;  in  London,  370-371.  See  also 
Board  of  Education. 

Elections,  municipal,  in  France,  17; 
procedure  at,  25-35;  contested, 
35-36;  interference  by  higher  offi- 
cials at,  37;  influence  of  parties  in, 
41—42;  of  mayor  and  adjoints,  64— 
65;  in  Prussia,  140-145;  in  Eng- 
land, 239-240;  corrupt  and  illegal 
practices  at,  249-251 ;  contested, 
251-252;  in  London,  346-350,  353- 
354.  See  also  Ballot,  Parties. 

Electric  lighting,  in  England,  provi- 
sional orders  of  the  Board  of  Trade 
regulating,  268;  in  London  bor- 
oughs, 375-376. 

Employees,  municipal,  in  France,  how 
appointed,  89;  character  of,  90;  in 
the  department  of  the  Seine,  98-99; 
in  Prussia,  how  appointed,  177-178; 
tenure  of,  179-180;  probationary 
periods  for,  205;  in  England,  how 
appointed,  306-307;  relation  of 
borough  councils  to,  308-309.  See 
also  Officials. 

Engineer,  chief,  office  of,  in  London,  365. 

Essen,  distribution  of  voters  in,  132. 

Etat  civil,  in  France,  relation  of,  to 
voters'  lists,  21 ;  powers  of  mayor 
in  relation  to,  80;  compared  with 
system  of  police  registration  in 
Prussia,  196-197. 

FABIAN  SOCIETY,  influence  of,  in  Lon- 
don politics,  348-349;  attitude  of, 
to  London  gas  service,  354. 

Ferry,  Jules,  former  prefect  of  the 
Seine,  95. 

Fire  insurance,  municipal,  in  Prussia, 
121. 

Fire  protection,  in  France,  77;  in 
Prussia,  172;  in  London,  351. 

Frankfort,  system  of  voting  in,  132; 
salary  of  Biirgermeister  in,  190; 
municipal  deputations  in,  198. 

Frederick  the  Great,  King  of  Prussia, 
municipal  administration  under, 
113-114. 

Freiburg-m-Baden,  number  of  coun- 
cillors in,  127. 


406 


INDEX 


GARDES  champetres.     See  Police. 

Gas,   relation  of  council  committee  to 

service    of,    259;     service    may    be 

municipalized  by  provisional  order, 

268;   in  London,  354. 
Gifts  and  legacies,  to  French  cities,  58- 

59. 

HAKEN,  Herr,  Oberbiirgermeister  of 
Stettin,  189. 

Hanover,  number  of  councillors  in,  127; 
term  and  salary  of  Burgenneister  in, 
189-190. 

Haussmann,  Baron,  former  prefect  of 
the  Seine,  95. 

Hedon,  borough  of,  272. 

History,  of  French  cities,  1—10;  of 
Prussian  cities,  113-117;  of  Eng- 
lish cities,  209-215. 

Home  Office,  in  England,  relation  of,  to 
private  bill  legislation,  266;  genesis 
of  its  police  supervision,  316;  or- 
ganization and  powers  of,  333-337; 
jurisdiction  of,  in  relation  to  work- 
ingmen's  dwelling  projects,  352-353 ; 
supervision  of  metropolitan  police 
system  by,  377. 

H6tel  de  Ville  in  Paris,  as  civic  head- 
quarters, 94. 

Housing.     See  Tenements. 

INSPECTORS  of  Constabulary,  in  Eng- 
land, duties  of,  334-337. 

Interpellations,  in  Chamber  of  Depu- 
ties, relating  to  municipal  affairs, 
84. 

JUGE  de  paix,  in  France,  relation  of, 
to  municipal  voters'  lists,  21. 

Justice,  administration  of,  in  English 
boroughs,  310-313.  See  also  Courts. 

Justices  of  the  Peace,  in  English  bor- 
oughs, control  of  licensing  by,  279- 
280. 

KONIGSBERG,  number  of  councillors  in, 
127. 

LABOR,  relation  of  municipalities  to,  in 
France,  41;  in  London,  349-350. 
See  also  Parties. 

Leeds,  agreement  concerning  election  of 
aldermen  in,  258. 

Leipsic,  number  of  councillors  in,  127; 
term  of  Biirgermeister  in,  189;  offi- 
cial salaries  in,  190. 

Lepine,  Louis,  prefect  of  police  in  Paris, 
101. 

Licenses,  for  the  sale  of  liquor,  in  Eng- 


lish boroughs,  provisions  made  in 
1835,  220-221;  present  provisions 
for,  279-280;  supervision  of,  by 
justices  of  the  peace,  310. 

Lighting,  public.  See  Gas,  Electricity, 
Utilities. 

Liverpool,  non-resident  voters  in,  237 ; 
non-resident  councillors  in,  248; 
number  of  members  in  council  of, 
256;  sources  of  borough  powers  in, 
269;  council  committees  in,  282; 
administration  of  civil  justice  in, 
312. 

Loans,  municipal,  in  France,  58;  in 
England,  276-278. 

Local  Government  Board,  jurisdiction 
of,  in  creation  of  urban  districts, 
224;  relation  of,  to  borough  char- 
ters, 225;  deals  with  boundaries, 
228;  approves  ward  divisions,  235; 
reports  on  private  bills,  265-266; 
may  veto  borough  by-laws,  271; 
powers  of,  in  connection  with  bor- 
ough property,  272;  approves  pro- 
posals for  borrowing,  276-277; 
supervises  poor  relief  system,  279; 
receives  auditors'  statements,  305- 
306;  its  origin,  314-315;  its  or- 
ganization and  general  powers,  316; 
its  staff,  329-330;  its  relation  to 
the  London  County  Council,  356. 

London,  rise  of,  209-214;  special  posi- 
tion of,  220;  electorate  of,  230; 
parties  in,  243-244;  political  or- 
ganization of,  339-340;  areas  of 
government  in,  341 ;  city  of,  341— 
344;  county  of,  344-345;  regula- 
tion of  traffic  in,  352;  public  ser- 
vices of,  353-355 ;  debt  of,  372-373  ; 
parishes  of,  373 ;  metropolitan 
boroughs  of,  374-377;  decentrali- 
zation of  administrative  authority 
in,  377. 

London  County  Council,  establishment 
of,  345-346;  powers  of,  351-355; 
revenues  of,  355-356;  committees 
of,  358-361;  its  officials,  364-366; 
its  achievements,  366-371. 

Lord-lieutenant,  office  of,  in  boroughs, 
312. 

Lord  Mayor,  office  of,  in  London,  343. 

Lubbock,  Sir  John  (Lord  Avebury),  sec- 
ond chairman  of  the  London  County 
Council,  350. 

Lyons,  size  of  municipal  council  in,  17; 
administration  of,  during  the  Sec- 
ond Empire,  48;  number  of  ad- 
joints  in,  62;  police  control  in,  73; 
civil  service  system  of,  89. 


INDEX 


407 


MACATJLAY,  Lord,  estimates  population 
of  London,  210. 

McMahon,  Marshal,  president  of  France, 
attitude  of,  to  principle  of  municipal 
autonomy,  11. 

Magdeburg,  salary  of  Burgenneister  in, 
190. 

Magistral,  in  Prussian  cities,  duties  of, 
concerning  voters'  lists,  129;  fixes 
dates  of  polling,  140;  members  of, 
present  at  council  meetings,  157; 
prepares  business  for  council,  157- 
158;  receives  record  of  council 
proceedings,  159;  its  membership, 
163-164;  qualifications  of  members, 
164-166;  duties  of,  as  a  body,  168; 
relation  of,  to  state  functions,  169- 
170;  financial  powers,  175-176; 
appointing  powers,  177;  removal 
of  officials  by,  179;  represents  city 
corporation,  180;  members  of, 
serve  on  joint  commissions,  181- 
182;  procedure  at  meetings  of,  182- 
183;  its  efficiency  as  an  organ,  197- 
198;  relation  of  municipal  deputa- 
tions to,  199;  centre  of  adminis- 
trative authority,  201 ;  heads  of 
bureaus  appointed  by,  204-205. 

Manchester,  non-resident  voters  in,  237 ; 
non-resident  councillors  in,  248; 
sources  of  borough  powers  in,  269. 

Mannheim,  size  of  council  in,  127. 

Marseilles,  state  intervention  in  affairs 
of,  14;  police  of,  73. 

Mayor,  office  of,  in  France,  60-61 ; 
election  of,  62-64;  allowance  for 
expenses  to,  65-66;  dual  position 
of,  67-68;  financial  powers  of,  70; 
draws  budget,  71 ;  powers  of,  over 
municipal  property,  72 ;  over  streets, 
73 ;  over  police,  75,  78 ;  to  issue  or- 
dinances, 76-79;  relation  of,  to 
system  of  £tat  civil,  80;  military 
duties  of,  81-82;  enrols  voters,  82; 
may  be  suspended  or  dismissed,  83; 
limitations  on  powers  of,  83-84; 
distributes  duties  to  adjoints,  85; 
in  arrondissements  of  Paris,  99-100; 
in  England,  position  of,  prior  to 
1835,  212;  scrutinizes  nomination 
papers,  238;  elected  by  council, 
253 ;  present  position  of,  254 ;  pow- 
ers and  duties  of,  255-256;  in 
metropolitan  boroughs,  374. 

Metropolitan  Board  of  Works,  in  Lon- 
don, organization  and  work  of,  344— 
345. 

Metropolitan  police,  of  London,  377- 
378. 


Metropolitan  Water  Board,  in  London, 
353. 

Minister  of  the  Interior,  in  France, 
powers  of,  in  relation  to  municipal 
budgets,  56-57;  appeals  from  de- 
cisions of  prefects  to,  59;  decrees 
issued  by,  76;  may  suspend  mayor, 
83;  special  powers  of,  in  Paris,  95; 
in  Prussia,  jurisdiction  of,  119; 
influence  of,  121-122. 

Ministry  of  Public  Instruction,  in 
Prussia,  control  of  local  education 
by,  201. 

Moderates,  in  London,  243 ;  programme 
of,  346-348;  influence  of,  at  metro- 
politan borough  elections,  375. 

Munich,  size  of  council  in,  127. 

Municipal  Employees'  Association,  in 
England,  organization  and  pur- 
poses of,  309. 

Miinsterberg,  Dr.  Emil,  head  of  poor 
relief  system  in  Berlin,  206. 

NATIONAL,  Assembly,  changes  in  munici- 
pal system  of  France  made  in  1871 
by,  10. 

Napoleon  I.,  emperor  of  the  French, 
reorganization  of  local  government 
by,  5-7;  government  of  cities  dur- 
ing reign  of,  8-10;  establishes  pre- 
fecture of  the  Seine,  95. 

Nominations,  municipal,  in  France,  25; 
in  Prussia,  140;  in  England,  237- 
239. 

OFFICIALS,  municipal,  in  France,  how 
appointed  and  removed,  68-70; 
duties  of,  86-88;  tenure  of,  90;  in 
Prussia,  179-180;  powers  of  Bur- 
germeister  over,  193;  serve  on 
municipal  deputations,  199-200 ; 
promotion  of,  205;  influence  of, 
293-294;  in  England,  how  chosen, 
294-295;  in  London,  360-366. 
See  also  Employees,  Civil  Service. 

Orders,  provisional.  See  Local  Govern- 
ment Board,  Board  of  Trade. 

PARIS,  supplementary  elections  in,  35; 
administration  of,  by  municipal 
commissions  during  Second  Empire, 
48;  police  system  of,  73;  special 
organization  of,  91-92;  peculiar 
political  position  of,  92-99;  pre- 
fecture of  police  in,  100-102; 
municipal  council  of,  102-108;  pro- 
posals for  reorganization  in,  108. 

Parish,  place  of,  in  London  government, 
373,  379. 


408 


INDEX 


Parties,  political,  influence  of,  at 
French  municipal  elections,  37-42; 
in  elections  of  mayors  and  adjoints, 
64;  influence  of,  in  Prussian  cities, 
147-148;  organization  of,  149-150; 
in  English  boroughs,  242-248;  in- 
fluence of,  in  selection  of  aldermen, 
256-257;  in  selection  of  commit- 
tees, 284;  in  elections  of  London 
County  Council,  346-350;  in  work 
of  London  County  Council,  359.  See 
also  Elections. 

Peel,  Sir  Robert,  part  taken  by,  in  re- 
form of  English  municipal  corpora- 
tions, 220. 

Police,  administration  of,  in  Marseilles, 
14 ;  control  of,  in  French  cities,  60 ; 
powers  of  mayor  concerning,  73-74; 
internal  organization  of,  74-75; 
commissioners  of,  in  France,  88;  in 
Prussia,  registration  of  population 
by,  129;  powers  of  Biirgermeister 
in  relation  to,  194—195;  jurisdic- 
tion of,  in  Prussia,  195-196;  in 
England,  national  supervision  of, 
333-337;  in  London,  377-378. 
See  also  Chief  Constable. 

Polling,  machinery  of,  in  French  cities, 
26-33;  in  Prussian  cities,  140-144; 
in  English  cities,  239-242.  See  also 
Elections. 

Poor  Relief,  administration  of,  in 
France,  51 ;  duties  of  mayor  con- 
cerning, 82;  in  Prussia,  196-197; 
in  Berlin,  206-208 ;  in  England,  273, 
279,  315;  supervision  of,  by  Local 
Government  Board,  317-318;  in 
London,  378. 

Population,  concentration  of,  in  cities 
of  France,  1-11;  in  cities  of  Ger- 
many, 109-110;  in  cities  of  Eng- 
land, 209-211. 

Poubelle,  M.,  former  prefect  of  the  Seine, 
94. 

Practices,  corrupt  and  illegal,  prohibi- 
tion of,  in  England,  249-251.  See 
also  Elections. 

Prefect,  office  of,  established  by  Napo- 
leon I.,  6;  jurisdiction  of,  in  mu- 
nicipal elections,  26-27 ;  interference 
of,  in  municipal  politics,  37;  sets 
date  of  council  meetings,  44;  may 
suspend  council  sessions,  46—47; 
powers  of,  in  granting  of  franchises, 
54-55;  over  municipal  budget,  56- 
57;  over  municipal  borrowing,  58; 
over  acceptance  of  gifts  by  com- 
munes, 59 ;  growth  in  powers  of,  59— 
60;  municipal  appointments  made 


by,  68;  receives  reports  of  mayors, 
70 ;  powers  of,  relating  to  municipal 
property,  72;  supervises  munici- 
pal police,  73-74;  issues  decrees, 
76;  may  suspend  mayors,  83;  in- 
fluence of  local  deputies  over,  85. 

Prefect  of  Police,  in  Paris,  powers  of, 
100-101. 

Prefect  of  the  Seine,  office  of,  94-95; 
powers  of,  96-97;  staff  of,  98-99. 

President  of  the  Republic,  in  France, 
may  dissolve  municipal  councils, 
47;  makes  certain  municipal  ap- 
pointments, 68 ;  may  dismiss  mayor, 
83. 

Private  Bills,  acquisition  of  borough 
powers  by,  263-267. 

Progressives,  success  of,  in  London,  359 ; 
in  metropolitan  borough  elections, 
375. 

Property,  municipal,  administration  of, 
in  France,  52,  72;  in  Prussia,  174; 
in  England,  272. 

Province,  government  of,  in  Prussia,  123. 

Provisional  Orders,  system  of,  in  Eng- 
land, 267-268.  See  also  Board  of 
Trade,  Local  Government  Board. 

Public  Instruction.     See  Education. 

RATEPAYERS'  Associations,  in  England, 
245. 

Rates,  levy  of,  in  English  boroughs, 
273-274. 

Recorder,  office  of,  in  English  boroughs, 
311. 

Reformers,  in  London,  346-348,  359. 
See  also  Moderates. 

Revising  Barrister,  position  and  duties 
of,  in  England,  233-244. 

Rhine  Province,  municipal  code  of,  115; 
origin  of  three-class  system  of  vot- 
ing in,  128-129. 

Rosebery,  Lord,  first  chairman  of  Lon- 
don County  Council,  350. 

Russell,  Lord  John,  introduces  reform 
measure  of  1835,  218. 

SANITATSRAT,  position  of,  in  Prussian 
cities,  167. 

Say,  L4on,  former  prefect  of  the  Seine, 
95. 

Schleswig-Holstein,  electoral  system  in 
cities  of,  132. 

Schulrat,  office  of,  in  Prussian  cities, 
165. 

Scotland,  reform  of  city  government  in, 
214. 

Secretary,  of  the  mairie,  in  French  cit- 
ies, powers  and  influence  of,  86-87. 


INDEX 


409 


Seine,  Department  of  the,  civil  service 
in,  89;  administration  of,  94-108. 
See  also  Paris. 

Sergents  de  ville.     See  Police. 

Sewerage,  administration  of,  in  Paris, 
97;  in  Berlin,  203-204;  in  Lon- 
don, 351. 

Shaw,  Dr.  Albert,  opinions  of,  on  cali- 
ber of  French  councilmen,  43;  on 
powers  of  German  cities,  120. 

Sheriff,  office  of,  in  English  boroughs, 
312. 

Social  Democrats,  in  Prussian  cities, 
object  to  three-class  system,  133— 
134;  oppose  system  of  open  voting, 
143;  strength  of,  148;  disbarred 
from  municipal  office,  167;  refusal 
of  authorities  to  confirm,  189.  See 
also  Parties. 

Socialists,  in  French  municipal  politics, 
41-43.  See  also  Fabian  Society, 
Social  Democrats. 

Stande,  Herr,  Burgenneister  of  Halle, 
189. 

Star  Chamber,  attempt  of,  to  centralize 
authority,  313. 

Stein,  Baron,  reforms  of,  113-114,  117. 

Street  Railways.     See  Tramways. 

Streets,  administration  of  municipal, 
in  France,  51,  53-56;  in  Prussia, 
172;  in  England,  375.  See  also 
Utilities. 

Suffrage,  municipal,  development  of, 
in  France,  2,  7-9;  present  regula- 
tions concerning,  18-23;  in  Prussia, 
124-126,  133-135;  development  of, 
in  England,  216;  present  require- 
ments for,  228-232;  in  city  of  Lon- 
don, 341-342;  in  county  of  London, 
346;  in  London  boroughs,  374. 

Surveyor,  borough,  powers  and  duties 
of,  301-302. 

Syndic,  office  of,  in  Paris,  105. 

Syndicates,  of  communes  in  France, 
90-91. 

Syndikus,  in  Prussian  cities,  how  se- 
lected, 165. 

TAUSSIG,  Professor  F.  W.,  on  the  ob- 
stacles to  public  service,  151. 

Taxation,  municipal,  in  France,  58;  in 
Prussia,  173-174;  in  England,  273- 
274,  355-356. 

Tenements,  municipal,  in  Prussia,  121; 
in  England,  281,  289:  in  London, 
352,  369-370,  375. 

Terror,  local  government  during  the,  3. 

Thames  Conservancy,  jurisdiction  of, 
355. 


Thames  Embankment,  construction  of, 
345;  jurisdiction  over,  352. 

Thames  Steamboats,  failure  of,  369. 

Theatres,  municipal,  in  Prussia,  121; 
regulation  of,  in  London,  355. 

Three-Class  System.  See  Elections,  Poll- 
ing, Suffrage,  Voters'  List. 

Tories,  oppose  reform  of  municipal 
corporations,  220-221. 

Town  Clerk,  position  and  duties  of, 
294-301. 

Tramm,  Herr,  Biirgermeister  of  Han- 
over, 189. 

Tramways,  relation  of  the  municipal- 
ity to,  in  France,  55-56;  in  Prussia, 
172,  176-177;  hi  England,  354- 
355;  363-364;  368-369.  See  also 
Streets,  Utilities. 

Treasurer,  municipal,  in  France,  87-88; 
borough,  in  England,  position  and 
duties  of,  303. 

Trondlin,  Herr,  chief  magistrate  of 
Leipsic,  190. 

UTILITIES,  public,  administration  of,  in 
French  cities,  60,  90-91;  in  Prus- 
sian cities,  120-121,  172-173;  fran- 
chises of,  174—175;  in  English  cities, 
280-281,  290-291 ;  attitude  of  Lon- 
don parties  to,  347-349;  powers  of 
London  County  Council  in  pro- 
vision of,  353-355;  powers  of  Lon- 
don boroughs  concerning,  375-376. 
See  also  Electricity,  Gas,  Tene- 
ments, Tramways,  Water  Supply. 

VESTRIES,  powers  of  parish,  373,  379. 

Voirie.     See  Streets. 

Voters'  List,  in  French  cities,  22-23, 
82;  in  Prussian  cities,  129-135;  in 
English  cities,  232-234.  See  also 
Elections,  Suffrage. 

WAHLBEZIBK,  in  Prussia,  compared 
with  French  arrondissement,  136. 

Watch  Committee,  of  English  borough 
council,  duties  of,  289;  relation  of 
Home  Office  to,  333.  See  also 
Police. 

Water  supply,  administration  of,  in 
Prussian  cities,  172;  in  English 
cities,  267,  289;  in  London,  353. 

Women,  political  rights  of,  in  English 
boroughs,  236. 

YORK,  growth  of,  210;  number  of 
committees  in  municipal  council  of, 
282. 


By  JOHN  FAIRLIE,   Ph.D.,   Professor  of  Administrative   Law  in 
the  University  of  Michigan 

Municipal  Administration 

Cloth,  8vo,  xiii  +  448  pages,  $3.00  net;  by  mail,  $3.18 

The  work  begins  with  a  historical  survey  of  cities  and  municipal  govern- 
ment. In  the  second  part  there  is  a  general  survey  of  the  active  func- 
tions of  municipal  administration.  The  third  part  deals  with  the  problems 
of  municipal  finance.  In  the  fourth  part  the  various  methods  and  prob- 
lems of  municipal  organization  are  discussed  with  special  reference  to  the 
recent  tendencies  of  reform  in  American  cities. 

The  book  aims  to  give  a  general  knowledge  of  the  whole  field  of  munici- 
pal administration  for  those  interested  in  public  affairs,  and  at  the  same 
time  to  form  the  groundwork  for  more  detailed  investigation  by  those 
who  make  this  a  special  field  for  either  academic  study  or  practical  work. 

Essays  in  Municipal  Administration 

Cloth,  8vo,  viii  +  374  pages,  $2.50  net;  by  mail,  $2.70 

"  In  the  United  States  students  of  municipal  government  have  come  to 
regard  Professor  Fairlie  as  one  of  our  most  trustworthy  writers  on  their 
subject.  His  work  has  been  distinguished  by  a  broad  and  accurate 
knowledge  of  the  facts  and  sanity  of  view.  .  .  .  All  together  the  volume 
forms  a  useful  commentary  on  many  phases  of  municipal  government 
here  and  abroad."  —  American  Journal  of  Sociology. 

By  LORD  AVEBURY  (Sir  John  Lubbock) 

On  Municipal  and  National  Trading 

Limp  doth,  8vo,  178  pages,  $1.00  net;  by  mail,  $1.08 

"  It  has  been  generally  agreed  that  it  sums  up  more  conclusively  than  any 
other  work  the  arguments  against  the  municipal  ownership  of  public 
utilities."  —  Chicago  Evening  Post. 


PUBLISHED    BY 


THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

64-66  FIFTH  AVENUE,  NEW  YOBK 


The  Citizens'  Library 

Of  Economics,  Politics,  and  Sociology 
Edited  by  RICHARD  T.  ELY,  Ph.D.,  LL.D. 

Director  of  the  School  of  Economics  and  Political  Science  in  the  University 

of  Wisconsin ;    author  of  "  Outlines  of  Political  Economy," 

"  Monopolies  and  Trusts,"  etc. 

Among  these  volumes  those  most  closely  touching  city  government,  etc.,  are : 

The  American  City 

A  Problem  in  Democracy 

By  DELOS  F.  WILCOX,  Ph.D. 

Dr.  Wilcox  looks  upon  the  city  as  the  open  door  through  which  political 
and  social  reforms  are  most  likely  to  come.  He  has  aimed,  by  an 
analysis  of  the  causes  of  city  growth,  the  characteristics  of  city  life,  and 
the  ideals  of  democracy,  to  develop  a  correct  theory  of  the  scope  of 
municipal  functions,  the  principles  of  municipal  organization,  the  extent 
of  municipal  responsibility,  and  the  sources  of  municipal  revenue  in  this 
country. 

American  Municipal  Progress 

Chapters  in  Municipal  Sociology 

By  CHARLES  ZUEBLIN,  Ph.B.,  D.B.,  Professor  of  Sociology  in  the  University 

of  Chicago 

This  work  takes  up  the  problem  of  the  so-called  public  utilities,  —  schools, 
libraries,  children's  playgrounds,  parks,  public  baths,  public  gymnasiums, 
etc.  Also  such  heavier  questions  as  those  of  rapid  transit,  sanitation, 
care  of  streets,  etc.  The  discussion  is  from  the  standpoint  of  public  wel- 
fare, and  is  based  on  repeated  personal  investigations  in  the  leading 
cities  of  Europe,  especially  England  and  the  United  States  ;  and  the 
legal  aspects  of  these  subjects  are  dealt  with. 

Municipal  Engineering  and  Sanitation 

By  M.  N.  BAKER,  Associate  Editor  of  Engineering  News:   Editor  of 
"A  Manual  of  American  Water  Works" 

It  is  designed  to  be  a  review  of  the  whole  field  of  municipal  engineering 
and  sanitation  rather  than  an  exhaustive  study  of  one  or  a  few  branches  of 
the  subject.  The  most  vital  points,  however,  under  each  class  of  activi- 
ties and  interests  have  been  dwelt  upon,  the  underlying  principles  stated, 
and  in  many  instances  details  from  actual  practice  given.  The  book 
must  appeal  to  all  classes  interested  in  the  improvement  of  civic  condi- 
tions. 

PUBLISHED    BY 

THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

64-66  FIFTH  AVENUE,  NEW  YOBK 


By   FRANK  J.    GOODNOW,   A.M.,   LL.D.,    Professor  of  Ad- 
ministrative Law  in  Columbia  University 

Municipal  Problems 

Columbia  University  Press,  cloth,  I2mo,  321  pp.,  $1.50  net 

A  discussion  of  municipal  organization  in  the  United  States,  and  of  the 
problems  concerned,  which  the  London  Liberal  describes  as :  "  One  that  all 
those  interested  in  municipal  matters  should  read.  .  .  .  We  question  if  any 
book  before  has  achieved  quite  its  important  service  to  what  may  be  termed 
theoretic  municipalism." 

Municipal  Home  Rule 

A  Study  in  Administration 

Columbia  University  Press,  doth,  I2mo,  $1.50  net 

An  attempt  to  ascertain  what  have  been  the  effects  of  the  various  constitu- 
tional provisions  adopted  in  the  United  States  for  the  purpose  of  securing 
municipal  home  rule ;  what  according  to  the  decision  of  our  courts  was  the 
content  of  the  sphere  of  municipal  as  distinguished  from  state  activity ;  and 
what  had  been  the  success  of  the  methods  adopted  in  foreign  countries  to 
insure  municipal  self-government. 

By  HUGO  RICHARD  MEYER,  Author  of  «  Government  Regu- 
lation of  Railway  Rates  ' ' 

Municipal  Ownership  in  Great  Britain 

Cloth,  i2mo,  $1.50  net;  by  mail,  $1.62 

"It  is  of  value  in  laying  emphasis  on  aspects  of  the  question  which  the 
advocates  of  municipal  ownership  are  prone  to  forget,  and  should,  consequently, 
make  for  more  careful  and  intelligent  discussion  of  the  subject."  —  Outlook. 

By  SAMUEL  WHINERY,  New  York  City  Engineer 

Municipal  Public  Works 

Their  Inception,  Construction,  and  Management 

Cloth,  8vo,  $1.50  net;  by  mail,  $1.63 

The  book  aims  to  present  clearly,  concisely,  and  impartially  what  is  needed 
to  enable  public  boards  of  administration  to  judge  wisely  of  the  work  they  are 
committing  to  public  officers  ;  and  more,  to  make  possible  the  comparison  of 
methods  in  force  for  some  time  with  those  latest  adopted  elsewhere,  with  a 
view  to  the  improvement  of  public  service. 


PUBLISHED    BY 


THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

64-66  FIFTH  AVENUE,  NEW  YORK 


"A   WORK   UPON   WHICH   WE   CAN   UNRESERVEDLY   CONGRATULATE 

THE  AUTHOR  AND  HIS  COUNTRY."  —  The  Athencsum,  London. 

The  Government  of  England 

BY  A.  LAWRENCE    LOWELL 

President  of  Harvard  University 

Formerly  Professor  of  the  Science  of  Government 
Author  of  "  Colonial  Civil  Service,"  etc. 

In  two  volumes.     Bound  in  the  style  of  Bryce's 
"American  Commonwealth,"     Cloth,  8vo,  $4  net 

The  New  York  Sun  calls  it :  — 

"The  remarkable  work  which  American  readers,  including  even  those  who 
suppose  themselves  to  be  pretty  well  informed,  will  find  indispensable  .  .  .  ;  it 
deserves  an  honored  place  in  every  public  and  private  library  in  the  American 
Republic."  —  M.  W.  H. 

"  Professor  Lowell's  book  will  be  found  by  American  readers  to  be  the  most 
complete  and  informing  presentation  of  its  subject  that  has  ever  fallen  in  their 
way.  .  .  .  There  is  no  risk  in  saying  that  it  is  the  most  important  and  valu- 
able study  in  government  and  politics  which  has  been  issued  since  James 
Bryce's  •  American  Commonwealth,'  and  perhaps  also  the  greatest  work  of  this 
character  produced  by  an  American  scholar."  —  Philadelphia  Public  Ledger. 

"  It  is  the  crowning  merit  of  the  book  that  it  is,  like  Mr.  Bryce's,  emphati- 
cally a  readable  work.  It  is  not  impossible  that  it  will  come  to  be  recognized 
as  the  greatest  work  in  this  field  that  has  ever  been  produced  by  an  American 
scholar."  —  Pittsburg  Post. 

"The  comprehensiveness  and  range  of  Mr.  Lowell's  work  is  one  of  the 
reasons  for  the  unique  place  of  his  '  Government  of  England '  —  for  its  place  in 
a  class  by  itself,  with  no  other  books  either  by  British  or  non-British  authors 
to  which  it  can  be  compared.  Another  reason  is  the  insight,  which  character- 
izes it  throughout,  into  the  spirit  in  which  Parliament  and  the  other  representa- 
tive institutions  of  England  are  worked,  and  the  accuracy  which  so  generally 
characterizes  definite  statements  ;  all  contribute  to  make  it  of  the  highest  per- 
manent value  to  students  of  political  science  the  world  over."  —  EDWARD 
PORRITT  in  The  Forum.  

PUBLISHED    BY 

THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

64-66  FIFTH  AVENUE,  NEW  YOBK 


